Ok wow the judge is a nut. How the hell do you release an obvious flight risk? Who the hell was his attorney and what was the prosecutor smoking during arraignment. I don't have much faith in the justice system but this is worse then expected. Even if he's on GPS monitoring, which is still stupid as he can be over the border before anyone can respond.

"I find it inexplicable, on a personal level, as how somebody can behave so barbarically to another human being" They though they could get away with so they did. Sociopaths are sociopaths trying to understand what makes them tick on a personal level is basically impossible unless you are a sociopath. I don't really see this as all that different from most hit and runs against pedestrians. The left the person to die I don't see pulling them off the hood as all that different.

We've had a similar case just happen where I live. Last Friday night, a drunk driver decided to run from police. He ran a red light at one of the city's busiest intersections and hit another car. The car he hit exploded, and two high school students who were inside were trapped and burned to death.

From the name and description of the perp, it's obvious that he is from Mexico. His citizenship status hasn't been announced, which is a pretty good sign that he's an illegal.

Actually, Barb defines these people as psychopaths. From page 51:

Sociologists generally use the word sociopath and believe that sociopathy is learned behavior, as, for example, with someone who is socialized in an antisocial subculture such as a gang. Biologists use the word psychopath and think that the behavior is an innate characteristic that cannot be changed. Psychology professionals disagree about with term to use.

Psychopaths know right from wrong -- they just don't act that way...

Amy, here's a link to what I was talking about above:

http://www.al.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-6/1240315368109910.xml&storylist=alabamanews

Upon further reading, the guy had outstanding DUI warrants under three different names. That seals the deal; he's an illegal.

There are three things at play here. I eagerly await one of our concern trolls to call me a racist after this post. Oh, and the atheists.

1) Illegal aliens are already breaking one or more laws by being here, and aren't likely to give a fuck about sticking around to be caught breaking yet another.

2) There seems to be something pervasive in hispanic culture that doesn't value every life equally. There isn't a pattern that I can detect outside of "if your existence is potentially harmful to my ability to do whatever the fuck I want, I'll kill you". There was a spate of baby killings in Hartford several years back, and they all involved hispanic couples where the new boyfriend beat the old babydaddy's infant to death.

3) I am convinced that there are people that are being born without souls. They have absolutely no connection whatsoever to any other form of life in the universe. How else can you explain a Jeffrey Dahmer who tortures kittens and eats little boys?

George Carlin once asked of souls, does God just keep printing up new ones? Wouldn't that tend to devalue them?

Maybe he just ran out.

"There seems to be something pervasive in hispanic culture that doesn't value every life equally." Among those that jump the border agreed wholeheartedly. Not sure we can judge the educated upper class the same way but the fence jumper yes.

Here's what I don't get: the LAT hasn't run the booking photos of either Cabrera or Luna, but has been all over the Tracy Sunday school teacher murderer story. Who's got the kid? Where are the stories from the neighbors?

Luna had a concealed weapons charge and was described as short, stocky with a shaved head and tattoos. I don't know about the short and stocky, but the other two yell "gang-related" to me.

Was there someone else in the car? Who takes a baby out for a drive at 3 am?

Kate -

The LAT has a blind spot for the criminal activities of illegals because the truth gets in the way of their agenda. And the NARRATIVE.

And the media wonder why papers are dropping like flies.

It's because we're on to THE NARRATIVE, and we don't much like it.

brian
1-you are right
2-you see such behavior in lower primates all the time
3-I dont know about a soul, but there is something that makes us more than the sum of our parts, music is a good example of what makes us more than higher animals. And soul works for lack of a better term

As to what causes its lack? FOr all we know it may be some physical flaw in the structure of the brain either present at birth or burnt out at some point in life.

As fo Barbs quote "Psychopaths know right from wrong -- they just don't act that way..."

I think it may be more accurate to say they know right form wrong on an intellectual level and not on an instinctual level.

I'd be pleased as punch he was out on bail, personally. Because he'd be dead if I were that mom, and the woman as soon as I could get to her.

The bible says turn the other cheek, yes. It also says an eye for an eye, and those who do not care fort heir family are worse than infidels. I side with the second 2.

We will have no society at all if we don't plug our borders. We unfortunately have enough native-born psychopaths, we don't need other country's. And the route to the death penalty needs to be seriously shortened and cheapened.

As long as we tolerate the politicians who allow this, we will get more of it.

We've seen this story before. Wasn't it in Illinois where some woman hit a car stopped at a railroad crossing and pushed it into the path of the train, killing four?

Drunk, illegal, repeat offender, unlicensed, check, check, check, check. Every time you vote for a politician who sanctions this, you are an accessory.

I'm not surprised this hasn't been more widely publicized.

Remember when Chandra Levy's killer was finally...well, not caught, since he was already in the system for other assaults (and murder, too, if I remember correctly)? There was a long article in the Washington Times about how news outlets had deliberately removed or reworded wire press articles about his arrest in order to get rid of any reference to the fact that he was an illegal immigrant and had already been picked up more than once and then released before murdering Levy. The only paper in the metro area that was willing to question how this guy managed to stay in the U.S. was the Times.

Brian has a point about newspapers becoming more and more irrelevant. It's crap like this-the overt shoving of a particular agenda (and I don't mean just a liberal one, there are news organizations that do the same from the other side of the spectrum) down the throats of the readers, some of whom are intelligent enough to do some fact-checking and resent being told how to think, not just what happened.

Of course, if people like Ehrenreich's spawn get their way, newspapers won't have to worry about piddling little things like facts once they're put on the government payroll. Then taxpayers will have the honor of paying for this kind of misinformation.

"And the route to the death penalty needs to be seriously shortened and cheapened"

I dont understand the conservative stance on this issue. First off conservatives like to point out that the goverment is not to be trusted because it's inefficient. But somehow we are supposed to give the goverment the right to take the life of someone and trust that they are doing it correctly.

PPen -

It's a matter of two approaches.

The more libertarian-minded among us think that the death penalty is too much power to give the government.

The more justice-minded among us feel that it is the ultimate deterrent, or would be if it was more quickly applied.

I'm of both minds about it. In many cases, the threat of the death penalty is the only thing keeping cops alive.

I don't like the government having the power to take life. Because a government run amok will use that power to get rid of opposition. But then again, there are some people who have simply forfeited their right to live.

What to do about that is a subject of much debate.

Just last week, a 78-year-old douchebag driving a truck with attached trailer was angry when he had to pass two cyclists on the road. Leaning on the horn the whole way, he tried to scare them when he passed, but ended up doing more than just scaring them. This guy ended up in the hospital with a bunch of broken parts:

http://www.bikeiowa.com/asp/features/featuresdisplay.asp?ArticleID=951

The driver left the scene, didn't come back to it for a half hour, and was only cited with unsafe passing. The cycling community around here is PISSED. I was even angrier when I heard some of the comments people made on a local morning radio show. For the state that hosts Ragbrai, Iowa has some people who HATE cyclists. Well god forbid your impatient, fat, road-raging ass take those few extra seconds to wait for a safe opportunity to pass and then do so with a proper margin.

But somehow we are supposed to give the goverment the right to take the life of someone and trust that they are doing it correctly.

I support the death penalty in theory. In practice, our justice system is not accurate enough for me to be enthusiastic about capital punishment.

I'm optimistic that our justice system can be improved. I don't know how, but making it a capital crime to prosecute an innocent person under false pretenses would be an amusing way to start.

thing about the death penalty is that it doesn't deter psychopaths... nothing deters them. I'm not sure who it actually deters. It is not less needed because of that, really. It's just that you have to be sure before you deprive someone of their existance. For the many you are sure of, there are guys that didn't do the crime to start. In a terribly sad way, I am relieved when the bad guys off themselves, because I know that there won't be some long drawn out process...

People would have less trouble with life imprisonment vs the death penalty if two conditions were met:

1. A Life term should mean life, not just a few years. There was a case here in Ohio about a year ago where a scumbag was sentenced to multiple Life Imprisonments. The newspaper article describing his sentencing ended with the note that he would be eligible for parole in (10) ten years.

2. Prison should be prison, not a taxpayer paid rest home. No cable TV, no Rec rooms, no library, no amenities at all. Simply food, weekly showers and a bed.

That might deter a few a_holes

I'm very much in favor of the death penalty, because I believe that if a person behaves like a crazed animal, they should be put to sleep, just like a pit bull that attacks a baby. However, I think the standard of proof needs to be much higher in order for the penalty to be applied. (I say this coming from Texas, where, as you probably know, we love to fry 'em.) Familiarize yourself with Dallas County wrongful executions for at least 20 good reasons for a higher standard of proof.

I don't, however, think that the death penalty actually deters monsters from doing awful things.

I certainly don't think that the threat of the death penalty would have made these two stop and assist the people they had just run over.

"But somehow we are supposed to give the goverment the right to take the life of someone and trust that they are doing it correctly."

There are plenty of cases where there just isn't doubt, this being one. Life in prison, without the perks, would be a hell that more cons would spend all their time attempting to get out of. I say, lets just do away with them. And the government doesn't actually decide it, juries do. Not that sheeple are in general more trustworthy than the gov't, but its not them actually doing it.

And why was his bail set at only $20,000? He is an obvious flight risk as a foriegner who has alread fled to Mexico.

His wife, the driver, had her bail set at 1 million. Yet this scumbag, who yanked the injured boy out of the windshield and tossed him aside into the gutter so they could get away gets bail set at $20,000?

What is the judge thinking?

I dont understand the conservative stance on this issue. First off conservatives like to point out that the goverment is not to be trusted because it's inefficient. But somehow we are supposed to give the goverment the right to take the life of someone and trust that they are doing it correctly.

What we need, and what law-and-order types will never freely allow, is to make it so that if you commit perjury or withhold exculpatory evidence, you face whatever punishment the accused was facing. Capital punishment would be easier to support if lying cops and prosecutors were essentially guaranteed to be locked up and even possibly executed (in capital cases).

I'm more of a conservative than a libertarian, but I know where you are coming from. There are nowhere near enough checks and balances in place to justify streamlining the death penalty. The number of people the innocence project exonerates each year is enough to make any decent person lose faith in the system. There are just too many scumbags, especially among the prosecutors in this country, who would rather get or keep a notch on their belt than see justice get done.

I'd also like to point that, ironically, the Mosaic Law of the Old Testament is actually far more advanced in this regard. It had the 2 witness standard and a policy that if anyone perjured themselves in court, they were to be sentenced, right then and there, to whatever punishment the accused was facing.

Quite frankly, I have little problem with a bald-faced liar in a capital case getting sentenced to death right then and there for trying to commit murder with the government as the murder weapon.

I essentially agree with everyone.

On a different note, the book you recommended, "Evil Genes" sounds fascinating. I just read the reviews on Amazon and will definitely read it.

Just to point out that while these two are scum bags and should be put down they are not any where near the level of criminal activity required for execution. Their acts were callous, inhuman and evil they were not under the current system capital. BTW as far as the two victims are concerned does it really matter if they had stopped to help as opposed to driving off. The act shows absolute disregard for human life but no intent.

"Because he'd be dead if I were that mom, and the woman as soon as I could get to her." A mom in a fit of rage against a gang banger you think that this would be a good idea? No you wait till the system has finished with them, then add six months. Then if they are still alive you cap them with an illegally obtained weapon. Blowing them away right there tells his gang banger brother who killed him. Later they'll assume someone else did and not target the rest of your family. I agree with the sentiment just not the execution.

Death penalty is generally little deterrent as far as the stats go. The states that have vs not have the death penalty show little difference per capita crime rates. I'm more for incarceration for life (and by life I don't mean 10 years) as to me that's a much greater penalty. Now if we tossed the whole cruel and unusual horse shit out and started using Eastern European or mid-East execution methods that's different. Gang banger are rarely afraid of dieing they got used to it a long time ago.

I don't know if I can defend the death penalty. I don't know if I want to. But when I contemplate whether it should be abolished, I always ask myself, "What happens if Charles Manson escapes? And what do we say afterward to the families of the victims?"

The death penalty should have one purpose, to protect society from those we cannot take the risk will be released or will escape from prison.

Conan brings up the one undisputed positive about the death penalty: when it is applied (assuming that the person to whom it is applied is guilty), it absolutely guarantees that the person to whom it is applied will never commit another crime.

I'm on-the-fence, leaning against, for the reasons cited above: do you really want the government in charge of this? That said, I could support a death penalty that requires a higher standard of proof, and has an expedited appeals process. The conservative critique that someone mentioned above is that the present application is the worst of all circumstances: a penalty applied 12 years after the fact is guaranteed to have no deterrent value, and meanwhile the convicted criminal has all kinds of access to the highest levels of government that ordinary citizens don't have. Witness the tendency to make celebrities out of death-row criminals.

So the libertarian position is, if we can't figure out a way to draw a bright line, let's get rid of it. That sounds good in theory, but the social conservative will point out this reality: the Left will work constantly, using every trick in their bag, to get those "life" sentences reduced. And while the conservatives and libertarians have to win that battle every time, the leftists only have to win once: if they can just persuade one judge, one time, then boom! all those lifers are out and loose in society again. (Somebody else mentioned Manson; it's actually rather remarkable that he hasn't already been released.) Which goes back to my first point: once a person is subject to the death penalty, even the most sniveling felon-apologist among the Left can't undo it.

There are stories of pickpockets that would work the crowds at England's public execution of pickpockets.

It has never really worked as a deterrent -- but it is a final solution. I agree that the death penalty should exist, but how it is implemented needs to considered. Keeping Manson, and other confessed murderers, alive is a waste of time and money.

I don't know if Charles Manson should be a candidate for the death penalty. Giving an order to kill someone not precisely the same as actually killing them; for one thing it's harder to prove. Did he tell his followers to kill in an especially gruesome and brutal way, or was that the product of their own enthusiasm? Requiring a higher standard of proof is wise, but I'm not sure how it would affect Manson.

Amy indirectly posed the question about why so little coverage has been given to this case. I scanned for the words "media" and "MSM" in the comments and the only one who mentioned the truth of the situation was Brian.

As he said, this case and any case involving crime and immigrants does NOT fit into the mainstream media's NARRATIVE.

I am not suggesting that the heads of newspapers and TV networks get together daily in some kind of conference call, conspiring to see what news they will cover up.

What's occurring is much more simple: Poll after poll reveals that over 98% of members of the media have liberal political views. This comes in two general flavors: Left and Radical Left.

So at most EVERY media outlet, it simply doesn't fit into their worldview that immigrants could possibly be a major source of crime. And that's why cases like this are covered up.

If you're interested to learn how we got into this travesty you need to examine what's being taught in journalism schools. A good primer on this subject is to Google for these 3 words: John Miller Steyn

You will find an ongoing battle of words between Mark Steyn and a journalism professor in Ontario named John Miller. The latter refers to himself as "The Journalism Doctor". IMHO he is an absolute disgrace and an embarrassment to his once noble profession. It is the likes of him, who strive for all facts to be sanitized from a story. He is much more interested in "not offending" then he is with accurately reporting the news.

And sadly, Miller is but one example. There are many, many others.

...it's actually rather remarkable that he hasn't already been released.

The swastika tattooed across his forehead may have something to do with that.

The law is done with Manson. He's received his trial(s) and cannot have his sentence changed to death. Double jeopardy is attached. He was tried when the death penalty was not an option, so he got life. What's disturbing is he didn't get life without parole.

I used Manson as an example because he was the only unrepentant confessed murderer not facing the death penalty I could think of on short notice. And his crimes were especially vicious. And I'm sure if he got out, he'd do it again. Alive, even incarcerated, he poses a danger to society.

He'll never get paroled. But what if Manson did escape and kill again. What purpose would keeping him alive have served that was more important than the public's safety?

>>Poll after poll reveals that over 98% of members of the media have liberal political views.

Not the Fox News stable, surely?

Some background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Manson

I don't know if Charles Manson should be a candidate for the death penalty. Giving an order to kill someone not precisely the same as actually killing them; for one thing it's harder to prove. Did he tell his followers to kill in an especially gruesome and brutal way, or was that the product of their own enthusiasm?

Yes, Manson gave the orders to do it "as gruesome as you can."

And, he did initially receive the death penalty, but it was changed to life when the California Supreme Court suspended the death penalty.

Jody - you really need to stop taking Media Matters seriously.

Fox has more libs on the air than CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC have conservatives, combined.

If you want to understand the power of groupthink on the media, simply google "Pauline Kael"

The modern American liberal tends to live in a world where other liberals are all they ever see. Your typical New York liberal can go their entire lifetime without ever having their worldview challenged.

In other words, liberal is "mainstream" to them. Which is why they react so badly to things like Nixon or Reagan winning the presidency. It's just unfathomable to them that someone could willingly vote that way.

"Did he tell his followers to kill in an especially gruesome and brutal way"

I'm not sure how much weight the method should get. The outcome is the same in the end, someone gone for good. Much like a hate crime-how can a murder be any worse than a murder?

Jody, I assume your question was posed in satire. The way you phrased it, I can only conclude that you are in denial about the make up of the MSM.

I couldn't find the link to the poll I cited but here's one I did find:

1,400 members of the mainstream media were asked who they voted for:

* 89% voted for Clinton in 1992
* 7% voted for Bush in 1992

Freedom Forum sponsored poll, 1992

So even back then you had a vast majority of the media voting for the Democrats. Are you going to try and argue that many of those were died in the wool conservatives who suddenly just decided to give Clinton a try?

Getting back to the original story, I've posited a clear hypothesis of why immigrant crime stories are barely covered in the media. And your response is ... well, pretty much a non-response so far.

momof3:

I'm not sure how much weight the method should get. The outcome is the same in the end, someone gone for good. Much like a hate crime-how can a murder be any worse than a murder?

"hate crime" implies that you are able to ascertain the state of mind of the criminal to a sufficient degree to determine that they were especially motivated to do wrong. This requires telepaths, and so should not be part of law.

What Manson did, however, was not only order a murder (which is in itself illegal), but he also ordered them to be done in a particular grisly fashion. Which would, had he wielded the knife, gotten him bonus points for being "especially heinous".

That's why his commands to be gruesome count towards his punishment.

In an unrelated note, Obama's pal Bernardine Dohrn said of one of the murders (Tate?) that it was "wild, man, the way they offed those pigs."

>>I've posited a clear hypothesis of why immigrant crime stories are barely covered in the media.

Robert,
The story in Amy's post was covered by ABC Los Angeles.

It's also perplexes me sometimes why some stories die - and others develop "legs" nationally. But I've an inkling your Freedom Forum sponsored poll wasn't entirely free of bias, perhaps?

Moral issues aside, one problem with the death penalty is that juries are less willing to convict if they know the person might face death.

Also, what with all the appeals, it ends up being very expensive.

White vics, latino perps, thats the most likely reason the story isnt getting much coverage. As i recall, one or two years ago a couple was raped, tortured, mutilated and killed by a bunch of psychos and that got very little coverage. As the conservatives pointed out at the time, this may have had something to do with the fact that the couple was white and the psychos were black.

KFI Radio replayed audio from a KNBC-TV interview today with Luna, the guy who removed hit and run victim Marcus Garfinkel from his car before driving away.

Luna said he didn't know why he and his wife " didn't have it in them" to call 911 or stay at the scene. Luna said he talked to his victim
Garfinkel, who was crying and responsive after a while. Luna said he "very gently" extracted the victim from the hood and windshield area of his car and carefully placed the victim on the sidewalk, being careful not to let his victim hit his head.

He and his lawyer want us to know he's not really a bad guy. Geez.

Anyone know what judge granted that guy bail? I definitely want to vote against that judge.

I'm not sure how much weight the method should get.

So blowing someones head off is the same a spending a week torturing them to death???

and the barbarism of this hit-and-run is just shocking. Yet, bitty coverage.

Speaking of hit and runs under the radar look up Rep. Thomas W. Druce, republican state legislature Pa. Same screaming about a media cover up from the left. Also this jack ass went much further in covering up his actions. Looks like he spent 1-2 years in jail at the most but coverage was spotty. This ass hole is a red blooded native born American, not one of us evil immigrants who's sole purpose is to steal from the system and run over college students.

The modern American liberal tends to live in a world where other liberals are all they ever see. Your typical New York liberal can go their entire lifetime without ever having their worldview challenged.

This isn't limited to us New York liberals. People tend to associate with people who reinforce and share their worldview. My conservative friends are not spending their time on DailyKos.

>>Your typical New York liberal can go their entire lifetime without ever having their worldview challenged.

I sat next to Alaska's Ted Stevens at a dinner party once. Does that count?

(It was definitely challenging).

This isn't limited to us New York liberals. People tend to associate with people who reinforce and share their worldview. My conservative friends are not spending their time on DailyKos.

Here's the thing, Monica. Conservatives don't need to spend time reading all of the left-wing blogs because they are absurdly monolithic. If you read the New York Times, you really don't need to read any other newspaper to know what the mainstream media will say - they all copy what's in the Times.

On any given issue, what the left will say is pretty much predictable. We understand liberals.

But if you look at the left-wing reactions to the "Tea party" movement, you'll find that they have no understanding at all of what's going on, and no curiosity about why they're wrong. They just repeat their bullshit louder and assume that everyone that is actually AT the tea party is lying about their motives.

Conservatives argue among each other to refine their worldview. Liberals argue to enforce it. It is this that liberals fail to comprehend, and why they interpret "arguments" between Limbaugh and Gingrich as evidence that "the right is falling apart".

Most blogs are crap, on both sides of the fence. And they pander to their audience, which is generally either conservative or liberal.

You were talking about "modern American liberals," but American liberals are not necessarily bloggers. I think we (meaning Americans who spend a lot of time on the Internet) tend to fall into the trap of believing that what people say in the media is what people believe in general. I'm a liberal feminist, and I'm often surprised when people start screaming at me for trying to take their guns and subjugate men to my will. My general reaction to that is, "OK, if you say so."

Despite being a member of the media, I stopped believing that the media is any kind of accurate representation of what people believe. People on web sites can, and do, say anything. In reality, people tend to be more nuanced.

His bail was $50,000, not $20,000. Thanks for the NBC interview--where's the LA Times on this story?

Anyone know who to call to get a look at the booking photos?

OKay-- I just looked at the NBC interview. If he's a gangbanger, he's low on the totem pole. They have 5 kids. He's unemployed. She's been working in daycare.

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Josue-Luna-Interview-Adrianna-Bachan.html

But they still have no explanation as to what they were doing out at 3 am, with a baby in the back.

And I don't buy the "We panicked" story.

I do KateC, I'm sure after they hit the bikers they thought, "God what would happen if they found the drugs we just bought"

"So blowing someones head off is the same a spending a week torturing them to death"

The thing with that is torture, and actually any type of assault before death, is a separate act, charge, and penalty. Doesn't need to be considered a "heinous" murder. Just murder's fine, let the other charges stand on their own. Is any murder not heinous?

Something's been nagging at me ever since I read this posting: Did the incident as I recall it really happen, or was it a TV movie of the week? I finally looked it up.

I believe it was the poet Carolyn Forche who wrote, "There is nothing one man will not do to another." Or woman as were the case.

Thursday, March 07, 2002 (Associated Press)
FORT WORTH, Texas — A nurse's aide hit a homeless man with her car, drove home with him stuck headfirst in her broken windshield and ignored his cries for help as he bled to death in her garage over the next two or three days, police say.

Chante Mallard allegedly told police she periodically went into the garage, apologizing to him but doing nothing to help.

Mallard, 25, was arrested on murder charges Wednesday and was later released on bond. She faces from five years to life in prison and a fine up to $10,000.

"I'm going to have to come up with a new word. Indifferent isn't enough. Cruel isn't enough to say," Tarrant County prosecutor Richard Alpert told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. "Heartless? Inhumane? Maybe we've just redefined inhumanity here."

Police said 37-year-old Gregory Biggs probably would have lived had he received immediate help. When the man finally died, Mallard and her friends put the stranger's body in the trunk of another car and dumped it in a park, authorities said.

The problem with such people is self esteem.

Specifically, they have it. They feel deep abiding love for themselves, to the degree that it becomes narcissism.

But every coin has two sides, and the flip side of this one is that they have no concept of self RESPECT.

Self Respecting people have standards, self respecting people hold themselves to certain behavior with seniors, subbordinates, peers, strangers, family, and when they are by themselves.

Self respect has been replaced by self love, and if love is soft and gentle and warming as a blanket, self respect is an uncompromising hammer...guess which one is better at forging good character?

If you need two guesses, you are part of the problem.

I've never met an asshole like in that story, that didn't love himself, I've also never met one, that knew the difference between respect and love.