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.
Imagine the reaction if someone posted a vanity, "My wife's psychiatrist says we shouldn't have any more children".
God help you in this country if you are on the wrong side of the hysterical "nonjudgemental" types.
I do not see this as an attack on the one income family, or anything like that.
Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s. But still you see people here criticizing him for not using birth control and other things. They buy into the fundamental points of the anti-family liberal elite: that families are not organic extensions of our relationship with God, but rather political and social arrangements among humans which can take on a variety of forms: "lifestyles." So if you agree on the principle, the only thing left is to agree on the degree. But I don't expect many to understand this. It takes a bit of thinking beyond the headlines and the empty emotionalism that dominates much of the debate.
It does not make sense. Either Andrea Yates is responsible and guilty or her husband. But it seems that prosecutors do not mind to convict two people for the one act. Actually there was a case in California (I could not locate the link) where the same prosecutor won convictions in two separate trials agains two different defendants for the same one murder. In each "victory" the defendant was found guilty for being the individual murderer. Prosecutor saw nothing wrong in that.
I agree with your comments. But I also think what Rusty knew, didn't know, and how he may have been negligent should be investigated.......he wasn't on trial, so we don't really know what he knew and may have tried to do, to prevent this from happening.....an investigation is at least warranted.
or "queers," as you so charmingly put it.
Sorry, they call themselves that. Ever heard the chant: "we're here, we're queer, get used to it"? Their words, not mine.
You're probably right that there are some liberals who feel that way, but only liberals who felt that way before will have that reaction to this situation. Sensible people know that this case has nothing to do with traditional values.
This character is culpable of child endangerment, and he's in serious denial. He's blaming everyone but himself and his wife.
He's even already stating that he may have more children. Let's see, his wife is going up the river for the next 40 years. Conjugal visits will not be allowed. That means that on the day that his beloved wife was sentenced to 40 years in prison, this creep has already decided to divorce her and find a replacement for her.
Wouldn't you be demanding the execution of both parents in this case, had they been part of the "pagan elite," or gay? Wouldn't you be "singing a different tune"?
Not if the kind of organic, quatifiable mental illness that was present in this case was a factor in any of the above cases. It is a basic understanding of our criminal justice system, along with those of all other countries where the rule of law is the standard, that those with diminished mental capacities are not held accountable in the same manner as those not thusly afflicted.
BTW what does Rusty do at NASA? Is he a janitor or a real life rocket scientist? Just curious.
Truly, I think only an investigation would help in determining what he knew, what he did to help prevent anything from happening (if he did know what his wife may do), etc. Ignoring this because HE was not the one who killed the kids, would be wrong, I think. What about the parents who leave their young children alone all night and the house catches fire and they all die? The parents would be held responsible for negligence.....not for murder. The same could be said of an intruder coming into the house while the parents are gone all night (without having someone responsible supervising).......the intruder may kill a child, but would we not look at the parents as being culpable....the old "but for" argument could be brought in here too...."but for" the parents not leaving the children all alone, the children may not have been harmed...
Yours: Of course you don't. You think the elites are so obvious? They count on sheep like you see on this thread to buy their b.s. But still you see people here criticizing him for not using birth control and other things. They buy into the fundamental points of the anti-family liberal elite: that families are not organic extensions of our relationship with God, but rather political and social arrangements among humans which can take on a variety of forms: "lifestyles." So if you agree on the principle, the only thing left is to agree on the degree. But I don't expect many to understand this. It takes a bit of thinking beyond the headlines and the empty emotionalism that dominates much of the debate.
This isn't about lifestyle, it's about common sense. Randy Yates demonstrated that he's short in this area by not opting out of having more children when his wife clearly had serious mental problems following giving birth. She also had attempted suicide twice. Leaving his kids alone with a woman with that track record wasn't smart--it was outrageously stupid. Having more kids with her after suicide attempts and ppd wasn't smart, either.
One more thing--I'm not a sheep, thank you very much!
... after all, he IS an evil white guy ...
One more thing--I'm not a sheep, thank you very much!
I never said you were. Look at my original post. I said "sheep like you see on this thread." There is a difference.
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.