Andrea Yates – Heartless Whore
The 42-year-old will be committed to a state mental hospital, with periodic hearings before a judge to determine whether she should be released.
If convicted of murder, she would have faced life in prison.
I know it’s old news but it’s just so damn shocking. This heartless whore methodically drowns her five children and they decide it’s not murder? No one doubts that she killed them, but they play a tapdance with words and now she’s not a murderer – she’s just “insane”.
And that changes what? Five children, her children, are still dead. Five children will never grow up to play kickball, go to the prom – have a family of their own. Why is insanity a copout?
This woman should be swinging from a yardarm. Instead, she could be your neighbor.
It’s clear that our judicial system is in a state of disgrace.
Any woman OR man that can not love and respect their children has little to offer. The insanity plea has become grossly abused in our justice system. “Fryer.”
Comment by bonnie — September 24, 2006 @ 10:02 am
even worse is that her ex-husband, Russell, supported her in her insanity plea. it’s the biggest bunch of horse shit ever.
Comment by girl — September 24, 2006 @ 10:34 am
girl- I can’t figure out why that man is still free?! He knew she was nuts, he knew she was not taking her meds, he knew she had long term problems, but short term, back to back stints in the nut-house, yet he still left her to care for the children!
Those children are still the victims…that BASTARD has nt found the good sense to update their memorial blog!
Comment by Pam — September 25, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
I dunno. I still don’t think he’s really guilty of anything other than being an ignorant jackass and negligence, perhaps, too. but when it comes down to it, Andrea is the one that made the decision to singlehandedly off her children, one by one. she picked a time of the day when no one would be coming to her home to prevent her. she knew what she was doing and no one will ever convince me otherwise. I don’t feel like that bitch meets the legal definition of insanity in Texas. I think she’s a “crazy bitch”, but I don’t think she’s “mentally insane.” the prosecution really blew it the first time around by putting that idiot that perjured himself on the stand.
Comment by girl — September 26, 2006 @ 9:30 am
also, I want to add that I’ve actually met Russel Yates many times. he used to come into the store where I worked a couple of years ago at night when the store was relatively empty. he very rarely spoke more than a couple of words to me unless I spoke to him first. he was definitely a very strange man. he had the most vacant eyes I think I’ve ever seen. I don’t know whether that’s a result of the loss of his children or if he was that vacant prior.
Comment by girl — September 26, 2006 @ 9:36 am
I agree with Pam 100%. Not only did the woman homeschool those children, but HE home CHURCHED them too. The woman was in a house with those children ALL the time and he KNEW she suffered from depression and left her there with them!! SHAME ON HIM!!!! Yes, she is to blame, but I do believe that he is to blame for it too.
He is just lucky he got to move on with his life and to think that man married again. I hope she has the sense to NOT have children with that bastard!
Comment by Brenda — September 26, 2006 @ 10:48 am
Good point Brenda!
Girl- I am in no way excusing the bitch! That was pre-meditated murder. What I didn’t say, but meant, Rusty claims she is insane, she couldn’t help herself…okay, well he could have..he could have kept her in the hospital as the doctors suggested, he could have arranged for the children to be cared for by others..he could have and should have!
He made the excuse that Andrea felt that Rusty thought she couldn’t be trusted with the kids, so he wanted to show her she could be…5 kids later….
Comment by Pam — September 26, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
“Any woman OR man that can not love and respect their children has little to offer. The insanity plea has become grossly abused in our justice system. “Fryer.â€?”
No it hasn’t you fucking bitch ! Less than one percent of cases are pleaded to insanity and the defense rarely works. You have no fucking idea what mental illnes is and why some one wouldn’t be morally calpable because of it. Call me back when you grow a fucking brain! whovian222@msn.com
Comment by chris mankey — October 10, 2006 @ 10:41 pm
Well, if we didn’t have a fucking idea what mental illness was before, I think you just provided us with a perfect example.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 10, 2006 @ 11:28 pm
“You have no fucking idea what mental illnes is and why some one wouldn’t be morally calpable because of it.”
I think we just found a subject matter expert.
Comment by Gordon — October 11, 2006 @ 12:04 am
I think we just found a subject matter expert.
Tell you what, use an intelligent argument to rebut the idea that some people aren’t responsible for there behavior because of disease or defect. I don’t think you have the intelligence to do so!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 12:43 am
\”Tell you what, use an intelligent argument to rebut…\”
Like your retort to Bonnie?
\”No it hasn’t you fucking bitch !\”
Umm. Okay. Do you care to provide any further emotional outbursts and provide even more evidence of your own mental imbalance?
Are those \”voices\” upsetting you again?
Comment by Gordon — October 11, 2006 @ 1:59 am
�Tell you what, use an intelligent argument to rebut…\�
“Like your retort to Bonnie?”
And your retort to me?
\�No it hasn’t you fucking bitch !\�
“Umm. Okay. Do you care to provide any further emotional outbursts and provide even more evidence of your own mental imbalance?”
Do you care to provide further evidence of your inablity to defend your ideas with rational arguements?
“Are those \â€?voices\â€? upsetting you again?”
Wow, is that the best you can come up with? Still waiting to hear your devestating critique of the insanity defense. He’s your chance to prove that you’re smarter than I am. Good luck!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 10:30 am
It’s amazing how many moonbats fly by, offer nothing, insult people, then demand intelligent discussion.
Hell, I’m still waiting for you to present an argument so I can tear it apart.
Got anything, muttonhead, or are you just going to provide us with a shining example of mental illness?
Comment by Geoffrey — October 11, 2006 @ 10:40 am
“It’s amazing how many moon bats fly by, offer nothing, insult people, then demand intelligent discussion.”
Blah blah, moon bats, libs etc……
Hell, I’m still waiting for you to present an argument so I can tear it apart.
Hell, you need to provide an argument as too why you think the insanity defense is not morally defensible. Is it too hard for you to compose a coherent argument about something? It would certainly show me up. But I doubt you can figure out how to build a convincing argument!
“Got anything, muttonhead, or are you just going to provide us with a shining example of mental illness?”
Do you have anything? Tell me why the insanity defense is flawed! Is it that hard? Present your case!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 11:58 am
The voices……….
Comment by Gordon — October 11, 2006 @ 12:15 pm
Moonbats are funny. They show up, puke on their shoes, then slink away.
Now he wants us to provide an argument for him? Hello? Anyone home?
If you have a problem with the post, argue it. Stomping your feet and whining about the injustice isn’t really an argument.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 11, 2006 @ 12:25 pm
“Moonbats are funny. They show up, puke on their shoes, then slink away.”
Blah blah. You seem to be doing everything in your power to avoid arguing for what you say you
believe in. Why would you do that, I wonder!
“Now he wants us to provide an argument for him? Hello? Anyone home?”
It’s not me to provide an argument for your moral positions. It’s up to you. Got anything? I just see assertions. “The insanity defense is a cop outâ€? Really, why is that? Because you said so? Anyone home? I guess not!
“If you have a problem with the post, argue it. Stomping your feet and whining about the injustice isn’t really an argument.”
The post makes nothing but assertions. You may not understand this, but it’s not the same thing.
I’m not whining about injustice, I’m asking you to make specific argument for why you think the insanity defense is immoral. Can you do that? It’s your position, defend it!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
You\’re doing a lot of dancing, but still failing to provide any substance.
I hold many beliefs. Which one would you like me to provide an argument for?
Oh wait, you want me to defend my position? Which position would you like me to defend, nutjob? I\’m dying to beat you down on something, only you\’re offering nothing.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 11, 2006 @ 1:01 pm
You\’re doing a lot of dancing, but still failing to provide any substance.”
Umm you’re the one who can tell me what specifically is wrong with the insanity defense. So provide some sort of argument. Can’t you do that?
“I hold many beliefs. Which one would you like me to provide an argument for?”
Why do you think the insanity defense is morally indefensible. I’ve clearly stated that I want you to give me good specific reasons why it’s a flawed idea about 9 times now. You must be pretty dense!
“Oh wait, you want me to defend my position? Which position would you like me to defend, nut job? I\’m dying to beat you down on something, only you\’re offering nothing. ”
I’m offering you the chance to tell me why you think the insanity defense is a bad idea. Are you not intelligent enough to come up with any reasons? You don’t seem to have any position other than “Stuff I believe in is true!â€? Slowly now. WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE INSANITY DEFENSE IS A BAD IDEA! You’ve had ample opportunity to “beat me down ” by presenting your convincing case about the problems with the insanity defense, but you can’t come up with any! So I guess I win! Yeah!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 1:33 pm
So now you state my position for me then ask me to defend it? You’re crazier than I thought.
I grow weary waiting for you to present an argument. Let’s start here.
Show me where I presented any opinion, pro or con, to the insanity defense.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 11, 2006 @ 1:41 pm
So now you state my position for me then ask me to defend it? You’re crazier than I thought.
What the hell is your position? You call people “moonbats” and rant on I assume you must be in agreement with owner of this site. Pro or con then! Or are you unable to state your position on this as well!
“I grow weary waiting for you to present an argument. Let’s start here.
Show me where I presented any opinion, pro or con, to the insanity defense. “
You haven’t presented anything of any substance at all. Including your position on the insanity defense. I mean if agree with the insanity why don’t you clearly state your position when I asked you to defend the moral untenability of the insanity defense. How hard would that be? Do you support the insanity defense (Circle one) Yes or no! Maybe! I don’t know. Undecided. Vote now!
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 2:05 pm
Or the insanity defense rather.
Comment by chris mankey — October 11, 2006 @ 3:24 pm
So first you say I’m failing to defend my position, now you’re saying I don’t have a position?
Are you following the moonbat talking points? Which is it? You’ve spent a page crying about my lack of defense, now you’re saying I have nothing to defend?
Your example of mental illness is extremely accurate.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 11, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
Society would do good to rid itself of anyone insane enough to kill their kids in cold blood – no matter whether you can name the insanity or not.
And yes, without question, anyone that would do what Yates did is crazy, nutso, insane, ill, out of her damned mind, whatever you want to call it. No way does that excuse them from punishment. No. Way. In. Hell.
If you think it does, perhaps you’re just as crazy, nutso, insane, ill, out of your damned mind, whatever you want to call it, too.
Comment by Chet — October 15, 2006 @ 11:15 am
You nailed it, Chet.
Comment by Gordon the Magnificent — October 15, 2006 @ 12:35 pm
Wow…I had no idea until now this rant was going on based on my comment.
I’ll say this just once. Chris, I do not know you, but I’ll attempt not to insult you.
Anyone that kills their own children under our justice system is due a defense in the same manner as any other person that takes a life. What defense that is, I don’t know. I, personally, believe there is NO defense for such a crime. PERIOD!!!
Guns don’t kill Chris, people do. The insanity plea can be used whenever the evidence is too damning to avoid…a way out post facto. If it works even once where someone has taken the life of another loved one, particularly a child, it’s TOO MUCH!!!
That’s my opinion. Grow your own brain and get some help before you end up needing some defense for your own behavior.
Comment by Bonnie — October 15, 2006 @ 3:59 pm
I see all of these comments about how bad a person Andrea was, and then the argument about the insanity plea. One comment stated that the insanity pleas works about 1% of the time, and that’s close to the truth. But back to Andrea…yes, by legal defination she was sane when she took the lives of her children. But if you looked at the whole picture behind the story, the woman was mentally tormented with all that was going on. She seemed to be imprisoned in a small trailer with her kids for some time, and then in her house. She home schooled them, they attended church meetings in her home, she never had time off from them. To top it off, her minister ‘friend’ and his wife kept preaching to her how bad a mother she was, so her kids were bad too!!!!! And then her husband wasn’t as supportive of her as he could’ve been. When did he ever give her a break from the kids by watching them himself for a while ? OF course Andrea was mentally impaired!!! She knew that what she did was wrong, but she wasn’t getting the support and help she truly needed and deserved from anyone! All she got was criticism, sarcasm, and no relief from her children. I believe that she truly thought that she was doing what was best for them by keeping them from turning into bad people. I think that she did what she did because of her love for them. It sounds twisted, but she’d rather that they died young than grow up to be bad people and suffer like she was doing.
Comment by barbara — October 16, 2006 @ 9:32 pm
I see your point and yet although she may not have had support, she had life. Her children had lives. Now her children do not. She does.
If she was tormented, she could have taken her own life and spared the children.
1% is simply a figure, not a life. Five lives, innocent children, are gone and that is the truth, not simply close to the truth or about the truth.
Comment by bonnie — October 17, 2006 @ 11:16 pm
“I think that she did what she did because of her love for them.”
So in Moonbat reality pre-meditated murder of your own children is really just a way of expressing “tough love”?
“It sounds twisted, but she’d rather that they died young than grow up to be bad people and suffer like she was doing.”
You’re right Barbara. It does sound twisted.
No, it IS twisted. What you’re trying to say is that these kids are better off dead, right?
Comment by Gordon — October 17, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
“One comment stated that the insanity pleas works about 1% of the time and that’s close to the truth.”
No, I stated that it’s USED about 1% of the time. Not close to the truth AT ALL
“But back to Andrea…yes, by legal defination(sic) she was sane when she took the lives of her children.”
Legally she was found not guilty
by reason of insanity. So by legal definition she wasn’t sane when she took the lives of her children.
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
“Anyone that kills their own children under our justice system is due a defense in the same manner as any other person that takes a life. What defense that is, I don’t know. I, personally, believe there is NO defense for such a crime. PERIOD!!!”
So having a biological disease that prevents you from controlling your actions and attitudes isn’t a defense. How does that work again? If you had the same disease and the same symptoms you could very well wind up doing the same things.
“Guns don’t kill Chris, people do. The insanity plea can be used whenever the evidence is too damning to avoid…a way out post facto. If it works even once where someone has taken the life of another loved one, particularly a child, it’s TOO MUCH!!!”
So the insanity defense can be misused so it shouldn’t be used at all? How does that work again? So people with a biological disease that cause them to behave in way that they wouldn’t normally. Clearly you don’t know thing one about this subject. You just want a pound of flesh and your violent emotions get in the way of your limited reasoning abilities.
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 10:47 pm
“That’s my opinion. Grow your own brain and get some help before you end up needing some defense for your own behavior.”
Thanks, I already have a brain! I don’t need any help because I challenge your uninformed opinions about mental illness and the insanity defense. Maybe if you tried to understand things before you spewed forth garbage about them you wouldn’t sound so stupid. GROW UP!
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 10:58 pm
“And yes, without question, anyone that would do what Yates did is crazy, nutso, insane, ill, out of her damned mind, whatever you want to call it. No way does that excuse them from punishment. No. Way. In. Hell.”
No, plenty of people who do what Andrea yeats did are cold calculating murderers with any mental problems of any sort. The difference is Andrea yeats was suffering from psychosis. If you can’t understand the difference between calculating coldness and a biological disorder that causes people to be unable to control their thoughts and deeds, then your opinion doesn’t mean shit!
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 11:10 pm
“If you think it does, perhaps you’re just as crazy, nutso, insane, ill, out of your damned mind, whatever you want to call it, too.”
No, I just have an informed opinions about something based on factual understanding and not on
half baked opinion’s about things I know nothing about. Your feelings about this issue are baseless and misinformed. GROW A BRAIN!
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 11:18 pm
Mr. Mankey,
Your reasoning would allow anyone to claim that their biological problem allows them to kill other people. I don’t buy it. I do know something about this subject from having been repeatedly abused both physically, verbally, and emotionally. However, I did not reenact the “burning bed” scene.
I suggest anger management for you perhaps because you have a knack for attacking with profanity and little to suggest that you have any solid reasoning behind what you state or your attacks. You yourself said that only 1% of cases attempt the use of the insanity plea. Perhaps you’ll take your own advice before you tip that figure over that 1% percentile range and get some help with your own imbalance. You do believe in biological “problems.”
Not everyone likes to see murder committed without holding those responsible accountable. I do too. I’m sure a great many would hate to see you make front page news without getting health care and see an innocent have to forgive your lame behavior.
Comment by bonnie — October 24, 2006 @ 11:32 pm
So first you say I’m failing to defend my position, now you’re saying I don’t have a position?�
No I assumed you didn’t support the insanity defense and then you stated that you never stated a position. You still haven’t stated what your position is. I assume you have one, but until you state your feelings about the insanity defense I don’t know what your position is . Is that too hard for you to understand?
“Are you following the moon bat talking points? Which is it? You’ve spent a page crying about my lack of defense, now you’re saying I have nothing to defend?”
You haven’t stated an opinion one way or another. So what is your opinion on the insanity defense? Good or bad? Moral or immoral? My inability to read your mind isn’t my fault but yours. State your opinion
“Your example of mental illness is extremely accurate. ”
Your sentence is poorly constructed and your inability to state your own opinion is perplexing. What don’t you get?
Comment by chris mankey — October 24, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
“Society would do good to rid itself of anyone insane enough to kill their kids in cold blood – no matter whether you can name the insanity or not.”
A society that refuses to see a difference between Cold selfishness and biological brain disorders that make people behave in ways they can’t control is pretty damn evil! So the fact that Yates had a disease that caused her to behave in a way she couldn’t control and to have delusions she couldn’t control is irrelevant? How does that work? Why should we get rid of the insanity defense just because you’re clueless about what mental illness is and why people who have some forms of it can’t just snap out of it? Your lack of moral character and your inability to even understand issues you form strong opinions of is disturbing!
Comment by chris mankey — October 25, 2006 @ 12:16 am
Moral character? You argue there should be no penalty for drowning your children in a bathtub and you question someone else’s moral character? Have you successfully used the insanity plea? Clearly you could.
Comment by Geoffrey — October 25, 2006 @ 8:16 am
“Moral character? You argue there should be no penalty for drowning your children in a bathtub and you question someone else’s moral character? Have you successfully used the insanity plea? Clearly you could.”
No, I argue she should wind up in a mental hospital if she’s mentally ill when she did it. If she wasn’t in her right mind then she wasn’t morally culpable for the crime. What don’t you understand, Geoffrey ? You can’t even grasp what this is about, can you! I knew republicans were dumb I guess you could get off on account of your mental inadequacy! Damn your stupid!
Comment by chris mankey — October 25, 2006 @ 12:28 pm
Mr. Mankey,
Your reasoning would allow anyone to claim that their biological problem allows them to kill other people. I don’t buy it. I do know something about this subject from having been repeatedly abused both physically, verbally, and emotionally. However, I did not reenact the “burning bedâ€? scene.”
Actually it would still require them to PROVE that mental illness exists and exists to the extent that it causes them to be unable to tell right from wrong. Being angry that someone abused you isn’t the same as psychosis. I guess if you can’t understand why, then your position is meaningless.
I suggest anger management for you perhaps because you have a knack for attacking with profanity and little to suggest that you have any solid reasoning behind what you state or your attacks. You yourself said that only 1% of cases attempt the use of the insanity plea. Perhaps you’ll take your own advice before you tip that figure over that 1% percentile range and get some help with your own imbalance. You do believe in biological “problems.�
Not everyone likes to see murder committed without holding those responsible accountable. I do too. I’m sure a great many would hate to see you make front page news without getting health care and see an innocent have to forgive your lame behavior.�
I would suggest trying to understand an issue in an accurate and reasonable fashion instead of resorting to character assaults in your replies. I haven’t seen one once of “solid reasoning “ from you yet! I don’t like to see murder committed with without holding people accountable, but you seem to be unable to grasp or refute the idea that though biological defect some people aren’t responsible for their behavior. Clearly you just don’t get it! I think you don’t want to understand, which is a pretty morally reprehensible position to take!
Comment by chris mankey — October 25, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
ounce. Sorry!
Comment by chris mankey — October 25, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
Mr. Mankey (or Ms.?)
This I most certainly do understand. You are wasting my time at this point. You don’t think you’re responsible for your own drivel which takes the form of attacks because you can’t seem to force others to think as you do.
That’s abusive, manipulative, and controlling. You could use some of the help you have stated is so necessary because you are not in control of your behavior at all.
My position is very meaningful. It is just as meaningful as yours.
I have no idea what your firsthand experience or credentials are. I can only imagine and hope that you yourself would not be responsible for guiding someone else to mental health. It would most certainly backfire.
Again, you attack, insult, use profanity and demand others see your point of view on an issue such as murder. ( the MULTIPLE murder of children by their parent )
Get a grip. Review your posts. Stop attacking people for wanting a world that is decent, sane, and not one where society puts up with insane, illogical reasoning defending the same for murder.
Good mental health acknowledges others by respecting their dignity of life and that the thoughts, feelings, and positions of other people are worthy.
Spew and insult away. It is not working.
Comment by bonnie — October 25, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
Chris,
Check your meds. You have no argument to offer. The first jury found her guilty and properly so, since by Texas law she is guilty. The second jury, after years of manipulation of the jury pool by the local MSM, voted to nullify the law. Andrea is on record as giving advice to fellow prisoners on how to file and use the insanity defense. Just as you have no manners or reasoning ability in your shallow spews, Andrea has done nothing more than get away with mass murder.
Comment by hunter — October 27, 2006 @ 5:44 am
“Chris,
Check your meds.”
Hunter, use an argument instead of a character attack. I know as a Republican it’s hard for you, but if you focus REALLY REALLY hard maybe you could pull it off!
“You have no argument to offer. The first jury found her guilty and properly so, since by Texas law she is guilty.�
According to Texas law they have an insanity defense. It’s based on the The M’Naghten Rules
Which allow a legal defense if….â€?.at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, arising from a disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.” These rules are, as of 2006, in force in the majority of common law jurisdictionsâ€? Including Texas.
“The second jury, after years of manipulation of the jury pool by the local MSM, voted to nullify the law.�
Nullify the law? The insanity defense is PART of the law in Texas. That would be an application instead of a “nullification� of the law.
“Andrea is on record as giving advice to fellow prisoners on how to file and use the insanity defense. Just as you have no manners or reasoning ability in your shallow spews, Andrea has done nothing more than get away with mass murder.�
No manners? Do I need to change my meds? Am I insane? Care to launch any more character assaults on me? My reasoning ability is intact as well and I realize that the insanity defense has been a part common law in it’s current form for about 160 years. Not dreamed up by evil libs in the present day. As for the rest IF they are true then MAYBE she manipulated the system to her advantage.
Comment by Chris mankey — December 16, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Mr. Mankey (or Ms.?)
This I most certainly do understand. You are wasting my time at this point. You don’t think you’re responsible for your own drivel which takes the form of attacks because you can’t seem to force others to think as you do. “
I never did that! I tried to get you to defend your position on the insanity defense with good argument, but you seem to be unable to do so! And clearly you don’t understand my position. I certainly can’t “forceâ€? you to think the way I do! It’s your position, come up with a good reason for believing in it that isn’t based on assertions, character attacks on me or misunderstanding about the law, morality and mental illness.
“That’s abusive, manipulative, and controlling. You could use some of the help you have stated is so necessary because you are not in control of your behavior at all.�
What? How did I “control “ you? By asking you to defend your moral positions? That’s pretty paranoid bonnie, go see a doctor! As for “not being in control “ of my behavior I would suggest that your work on being more convincing instead of retreating to your ad hominem cave to lick your wounds!
“My position is very meaningful. It is just as meaningful as yours. “
Really? Are you a relativist? One of us is very wrong about this and I don’t believe that it’s me! But I could be wrong! You’ve done nothing to sway me from my position other than make character assaults on me.
“I have no idea what your firsthand experience or credentials are. I can only imagine and hope that you yourself would not be responsible for guiding someone else to mental health. It would most certainly backfire.�
“Again, you attack, insult, use profanity and demand others see your point of view on an issue such as murder. ( the MULTIPLE murder of children by their parent ) “
My last post doesn’t contain profanity. What are you talking about? I don’t demand that you see my point of view, but simply want you to defend yours. Your very paranoid if you believe that I can control you or demand that you accept what I have to say without critically thinking about it. Also the insanity defense isn’t my personal point of view but a legal one that’s been around in its current form for about 160 years.
“Get a grip. Review your posts. Stop attacking people for wanting a world that is decent, sane, and not one where society puts up with insane, illogical reasoning defending the same for murder.�
I do want a world that is decent and sane. It’s not logical or sane to hold people accountable for things they do when they aren’t in their right minds do to a brain defect. If she indeed didn’t know what she was doing was wrong because of her psychosis then legally, according to Texas law shes not guilty of murder. This isn’t my personal idea, but a position that’s been part of the common law for about 160 years. You have yet to explain why you think that the law is wrong and you are right. All you do is resort to accusing me of being fond of murder when I ask you to explain why you think the insanity defense (as it is in Texas) is wrong. Get your own grip!
“Good mental health acknowledges others by respecting their dignity of life and that the thoughts, feelings, and positions of other people are worthy.
Spew and insult away. It is not working.�
Should I just accept what you have to say with asking why you believe it? Oh ok ! My post before this contain no “spewâ€? or “insultâ€? but merely a call for you to defend your position. Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks on my mental health while interpreting attempts to get you to defend your position as my means to “control and manipulate “ you. That’s pretty strange, bonnie! Lighten up on the paranoia and come up with a good reason why the insanity defense is mistaken! Why is legal precedence wrong and you are right?
Comment by Chris mankey — December 16, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
So what are those reasons again? Take your time. You’ve only had 6 months!
Comment by Chris mankey — May 21, 2007 @ 9:42 pm
6 months and you still don’t have an argument?
You working on an insanity defense? You’ve convinced me.
Comment by Geoffrey — May 21, 2007 @ 11:02 pm
6 months and you still don’t have an argument?
Huh? you’re the person without an argument. Let’s hear it! Explain it to me! What’s wrong with the insanity defense? I can’t wait to read your cogent and well reasoned arguments.!
Comment by Chris mankey — May 29, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
I understand the public school system failed you. Have mom read the thread to you, explain it, then come on back when you understand it.
I’ll be waiting, although after 6 months I don’t hold much hope.
Comment by Geoffrey — May 29, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
How much bitchslapping can Mankey take?
Make a point or hit the road.
Comment by Gordon — May 30, 2007 @ 12:05 am
Thanks to Andrea her kids are in heaven with me now. I forgive her, why can’t you?
Comment by God — May 31, 2007 @ 10:00 am
School system? I never made it past 3rd grade. Isn\’t that obvious.
Comment by Chris mankey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:32 pm
I have a mental disorder.
Comment by Chris mankey — June 13, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
“How much bitchslapping can Mankey take?
Make a point or hit the road.”
Well, my point was this A) Andrea yates suffered from a persistent mental illness that clouded her judgement to an extreme degree. B) The insanity defence has be in existence for 140 and seems to serve a good purpose in prevent people who aren’t able to tell the difference between right and wrong because of mental disorders they can’t control from draconian prosecution. I’ve stated this about 30 times now gordon. Are you too fucking stupid to realize what I mean?
Comment by Chris mankey — November 15, 2007 @ 8:25 pm
I don’t need to say anything because Mr. Mankey, who I can easily use, fights and badgers people for years to make this point( which the dumb shit doesn’t even know he’s making)…I can get away with killing my kids and use the system because I’m smart and he and everyone else is dumb.
Comment by Andrea — November 15, 2007 @ 10:44 pm
You’ve stated what thirty times? You don’t even have thirty posts, asshat.
Regardless, how do YOU know Andrea Yates does not know the difference between right and wrong and why should it matter if she dosen’t?
The whore is a menace to society and should hang for her offenses.
Comment by Gordon the Magnificent — November 19, 2007 @ 11:49 pm
Hey, at least I have something in common with her. I love to suck dick.
Comment by Chris mankey — February 20, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
I love love love DICKS!
Comment by Chris mankey — February 20, 2008 @ 11:06 pm
You know chris loves dicks! BIG BIG DICKS!
Comment by Rachel — February 21, 2008 @ 11:32 am
“Regardless, how do YOU know Andrea Yates does not know the difference between right and wrong and why should it matter if she dosen’t?
The whore is a menace to society and should hang for her offenses.”
Wow. Heil Hitler huh? Let’s just get rid of all of the undesirables – why stop with murderers? What do people with developmental disabilities offer to society anyway? Seriously, you wouldn’t even have told Lenny to look downstream would you? You would have just dropped him without even batting an eyelash. Who’s the real monster here?
Comment by Libby — March 13, 2008 @ 1:56 pm