Posted on 07/02/2015 3:54:03 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
An Arizona man charged with killing a married couple who went missing more than a week ago 'essentially confessed' to shooting them dead during a suspected drug deal gone wrong and then burying the bodies in his backyard, authorities revealed this afternoon.
Jose Valenzuela, 38, of Maricopa, was arrested early Thursday morning on two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of Michael and Tina Careccia.
The couple, who have five children between the two of them, were last seen alive leaving their Maricopa home on the morning of June 22. Mr Careccia's 17-year-old son reported them missing that night after he could not reach them.
Jose Valenzuela was taken into custody after police officers discovered the bodies of a man and a woman buried in Valenzuela’s backyard.
During a press conference Thursday afternoon, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told reporters that when questioned by police, Valenzuela 'essentially confessed' to the murders, recounting for the officers how he shot the husband and wife with a .22-caliber handgun and then borrowed a backhoe to bury their bodies behind his house.
Deputies were able to recover the suspected murder weapon while executing a search warrant at Valenzuela’s house Wednesday...
The couple's abandoned 2008 Honda Accord was found Monday about a half-mile away from their home, covered in dirt.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Never said alcohol was all fine and dandy, did I? Straw man argument.
You libby’s need another sound bite - that one’s getting old.
"The deceased woman’s brother told the station KPHO earlier today that he has learned from investigators that the Careccias were shot while trying to buy cocaine from Valenzuela.
"Valenzuela is being held on $2million bond. Records show that he has a criminal record that includes charges of assault and felony DUI."
Thanks for making “Spot The Idiot” such an easy game to play.
Have a nice 4th.
L
Valenzuela's meth use didn't kill this couple - his bullets did. If a trucker who was up all last night watching the Three Stooges falls asleep behind the wheel and kills someone, by your logic the Three Stooges should be illegal.
Meth use is not too compatible with work, so, yeah, sounds about right. That or cleaning their windshield at a stop light.
I never said it was the meth that did the killing.
It seems you don’t even comprehend my logic. That often happens when someone tries to defend the indefensible.
Yeah, you too, ‘L’.
The next time you take a position you can’t back up, try not to resort to name-calling and feeble attempts to insult.
It makes you look bad. And sophomoric. Still, I’m sure you’re a nice girl otherwise.
Happy Independence Day - I’ll be proudly flying the Confederate Battle Flag beside the Stars and Stripes for all to see. How about you? Or will you just be kicking back and ‘flying high’ instead?
“Yeah, because this guy is clearly a saint when not under the influence of meth:”
What you posted is an indictment on drugs in general, not simply behavior under the influence of meth. It’s supportive of my larger point at any rate.
This wouldn’t have happened if he bought his meth from a libertarian meth-dealer.
Anyone who doesn’t agree with your point is a “libby”...got it.
False dichotomy and ad hominem.
And since all the stress involved in procuring drugs will be eliminated, the possibility of the self-medicated going nuts and killing people for the joy of it will be a thing of the past.
"A gramme is better than a damn."
Libertarians have told us for years the only ones getting hurt, if anyone, are the users themselves. That’s why it’s okay to legalize illicit drugs!
Are you series? Is your reasoning really this shallow?
After removing your sarcasm and then employing your "logic", to have any semblance of internal consistency, alcohol should also be banned, especially since it's the worst drug on the face of the Earth, far eclipsing the damage caused by all other drugs combined.
Is that indeed your position, or are you just cherry picking?
In a Free society, people will sometimes abuse their Freedoms.
The way to handle that is to provide stiff penalties when People actually do infringe on someone else's rights, whether under the influence of drugs or not; to educate people on the consequences of their actions; to lead by example; to offer appropriate rehabilitation options; and in general to help create a society where such "escapes" are not sought out so often.
The way not to handle the situation is to employ the utterly failed and Tyrannical policies of the last 100 years or so; to engage in hysterical emotionalism (another tactic of the Left); to engage in unconstitutional shortcuts which trample on unalienable rights; and to let other authoritarians justify their pet Tyranny using the same fallacious logic.
The bottom line is, People who haven't infringed on others' rights don't deserve to face imprisonment for merely possessing the wrong one of God's plants, some medicine, or distilled spirits, against the edicts of the State.
Contraband law is, by its nature, Tyrannical, and hysterical nanny-state Prohibitionists, who seek to manufacture crimes out of thin air (even in the absence of any infringement on someone else's rights) are using the same tactics of the authoritarian Left. As such, they have no basis for complaining when other authoritarians (who similarly don't understand true Liberty) use identical tactics to create their own Tyrannical nanny-state laws.
Totalitarian much?
“Are you series”
Hey genius - learn how to spell. It’s SERIOUS.
When you’ve shown me you’ve moved beyond the sixth grade level, I’ll finish reading your less than literate response to me.
Does your Momma know you use a computer?
;')
Just because the guy was high on meth does not mean he is blaming his actions on the meth use.
The use of drugs are not always to blame for a persons behavior.
For instance, the meth use did not prevent him from realizing he did wrong to the point he borrowed a backhoe, dug a hole and buried them.
Lots of people do stupid thing behind the wheel and sometimes kill people by their action without being impaired by drugs or alcohol, just stupid people that don’t know how to drive.
They say 30% of all highway
fatalities are either drug are alcohol related, that would mean the other 70% of fatalities are caused by sheer stupidity.
“The use of drugs are not always to blame for a persons behavior.”
I know. Some drugs actually (intentionally or inadvertently) inhibit a person’s behavior.
Further, the identical ‘drug’ (for lack of a better term) affects different people in different ways, sometimes vastly different ways.
I am not against legalization of drugs (if regulated). Big Pharma alone is scrooing up plenty of people on their own. But at the same time I acknowledge that drugs are at the root of many a crime; they are not victimless.
Adam Lanza and the Charleston Church shooter were on some kind of prescription (legal and sanctioned) so-called psycotropic drigs?
Yes but were those drugs responsible for their hideous crimes?
If they had never been on those drugs, would they have committed those crimes sooner in life?
Don’tget me wrong, I am not an advocate for wide spread anything goes drug use, especially the hallucinogenic drugs where a person has absolutely no control of their minds, PCP, LSD, Bathsalts etc.
Valenzuela's meth use didn't kill this couple - his bullets did.
I never said it was the meth that did the killing.
Then who other than Valenzuela were you implying was hurt by meth? Maybe it's time to put aside the clumsy sarcasm and simply say what you mean.
"The deceased woman’s brother told the station KPHO earlier today that he has learned from investigators that the Careccias were shot while trying to buy cocaine from Valenzuela.
"Valenzuela is being held on $2million bond. Records show that he has a criminal record that includes charges of assault and felony DUI."
What you posted is an indictment on drugs in general
Nonsense - shootings happen during cocaine sales more often then during, say, alcohol sales because the legality of the latter drug makes available legal nonviolent means of settling disputes. And a person who commits assault and felony DUI and also uses and sells drugs is evidence only that those disposed to disregarding the law are disposed to disregarding the law - it says nothing directly about any of the particular laws they disregard.
(And what about his felony DUI: is that an "indictment" of alcohol?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.