Posted on 03/16/2002 7:41:28 AM PST by codebreaker
Prosecutors will weigh a number of factors that may lead them to prosecute Andrea Yates husband Russell for either child endangerment or negligent homicide. ABC News has learned.
No decision has been made, but it is being seriously considered, sources said. Prosecutors would charge Russell Yates if an when the evidence warrants, but do not have the evidence now, sources said.
Andrea Yates 37, was convicted Tuesday of two capital murder charges filed in the killings of her children last June.
If, for example, my husband were mentally ill, had expressed any thoughts of harming our children, and had been taken off medication, I would not leave those children alone with him. Never. If I knew that some particular occurrence aggravated his mental illness (such as Andrea Yates' pregnancies) I would not willingly and knowingly participate in creating that situation again for him (as did Russell Yates).
Perhaps my mind is made up, and perhaps that is not right. But a large part of my opinion is based on what I heard from Russell Yates himself.
I think Zviadist may be onto something in pointing out the political uses to which this case is being put.
Hi. Thanks for considering my thesis. Agree or not, at least you considered it. I appreciate that. Cheers.
?I can tell you that it is very easy to fall into self deception like that.
I know what you are talking about. Few others here do. You'd think they would refrain from posting their ill-informed ridiculous emotional opinions in areas about which they know nothing at all. If there were a site about nuclear physics I would certainly refrain from posting. Yet after reading a headline or two they are all experts. The sheep march on, carefully.
Because as you know, you and I seldom agree... on much of anything. strange.
Yeah, but you're a decent guy and so am I, so who cares. I'd still buy you a freakin' brew and I bet we'd have an interesting conversation. Cheers.
I hardly see how excusing a woman's heinous murder of her helpless children, AFTER she waits for hubby to leave for work, pretty much nails it down to one person ALONE.
I have PLENTY of respect for women. It's cold blooded murderors I despise, along with those who try to turn it into a sexist debate. Playing the gender card. Playing the race card... whatever. It's a liberal ploy to create moral equivalency when there is none.
Every time you fill in the post form you prove it. You are clearly grasping at reasons to hold someone else equally responsible for what the heinous murderess and she alone, did to her children.
.
bang and blame lady... just keep it up. you make my point very well. very nice of you to do it so diligently. thanks.
As far as the potential political ramifications, who cares? Because NOW might hammer Russell Yates, and it might put a conservative on the same side as NOW on an issue or might paint NOW in a good light, we should knee-jerk take a position against NOW? Because people who oppose "traditional families" and who hate the concepts of home schooling might use the example of the Yates to smear or impede others who seek to practice those concepts, we should keep our mouths shut about this?
Not me. Again, politics is or at least should be irrelevant here. To me, this is strictly about right or wrong. And if being right and being able to look at my face in the mirror in the morning puts me on the side of NOW on one issue out of a million, or puts me on the side of those who seek to attack "traditional families"/home schooling, so be it. Because right or wrong comes before political considerations for me, and I deal with things on an individual basis, case-by-case, on their own merits as they're placed in front of my face. I don't get into mind games and I don't worry about any supposed effects the matter at hand might have on anything else.
Basically, though, I think your posts in this thread have been intended solely to get a rise out of people.
I did nothing to make this a sexist debate......you did.....or someone before you to whom you were ranting.
There is absolutely no moral equivalency between what she did, and what he did, and I made abolutely no claim that there was (can you read?). I never said they were equally responsible for this heinous crime (once again, can you read? 'both' and 'equal' are not synonyms).
She committed the murder. She held her children under the water, suffering, struggling, trying desperately to break free. Her crimes are beyond description and beyond belief.
But that does not mean that he does not bear any responsibility for the crime. That does not mean he is not culpable because he was negligent to his children. His guilt or innocence needs to be decided by a judge and jury who have all the facts, but from the facts that have been made public, he did not protect his children as a father should, and should be held responsible.
That's what Internet message boards like this are all about. It gives people a chance to vent their spleen and rant from their individual soapboxes about issues. I don't of anyone with a brain who treats this as objective, rational, scientific or deductive analysis of things.
You've been here long enough to know better. This is not an internet chat site. It is a place for more serious analysis, not emotionalism and empty-headedness. Have a look back at the charter.
And the whole argument here is moot, because I'll eat every hat I own if the prosecutors in Houston come up with a charge that will stick against Russell Yates. Would I like to see it happen to him? Yes. So sue me.
Plus your use of the buzz word "sheep" connotes libertarianism to me, which is a philosophy that I do not and can not subscribe to.
That being said, the husband is negligent for the simple fact that he really was not participating in Andrea Yate's treatment. He gave a press conference and he said that all she had to do was to take her medicine and take a shower. Those were her only responsibilities. What did he think those five children were that were all over the house? mannikins? Why didn't he mention that the children were her responsibility and his. He forgot to mention the children AT ALL and I heard that sometimes during the trial, he played videogames out in the hallway.
He was negligent by not paying enough attention to a wife that was crafty and had a mental disorder as well. Human beings are very complex and due to his lack of sensitivity, he had no fatherly instincts that his children were in harm's way. He'd be a great guest on Jerry Springer and maybe he will try to capitalize on his undeserved celebrity. I won't be watching his pity party. I don't pity him. I feel only for those poor kids who were brutalized by mom and betrayed by dad.
Boy, are you right. I saw it too, and I was actually shocked by Rusty's totally self-justified attitude and his blame-everybody-else statements. Perhaps he saw this coming, too, and wanted to try to innoculate himself as best he could, but it was sickening.
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.