I figure a trigger warning is self-explanatory if you read the link. It's a recent CNN video with commentators discussing this story and their opinions. Comments anyone?

22-year-old allegedly molested 4-year-old boy before shooting his mother in front of him

He told the authorities that "He's sorry".

Local story here:

http://www.10tv.com/live/content/onnnews/stories/2009/01/06/charges_filed.html?sid=102

20 Charges Filed Against Charlie Myers
Tuesday, January 6, 2009 9:03 PM
By Denise Alex

DAYTON — The Montgomery County Prosecutors Office filed 20 charges against 22-year-old Charlie Myers in the death of Jenny Nelson and the kidnapping of her four-year-old son.

The charges range from robbery, burglary, and theft to kidnapping and gross sexual imposition.

Columbus police found Myers' bloody underwear and sex toys at Myers home near Ohio State's Columbus campus.

Franklin County prosecutor Ron O'Brien said this case is eligible for the death penalty.

"(It) Appears to be a serious and violent, senseless act of violence that was tied to the theft of the auto originally," O'Brien said.

Charlie Myers remains in a Columbus jail and is expected to be taken to a Dayton jail as early as Wednesday.

I fail to see how hate-mongering by uninformed talking heads is in any way going to help get our of hope message out there.

It has been shown that, consistently since the late nineteen forties, when data was first being compiled on such crimes buy the competent authorities, that more women, on a yearly basis, kill their male partner and/or children than do men.

Why is it that the media play deaf and dumb to female crimes of this nature but are so quick to brand any male who has commited a heinous crime, an animal.

Why is it that when women perpetrate the unthinkable, our legal system allows for implausible defenses and are often given very light sentences and when a man does pretty much the same thing he is branded a beast and all to often incarcerated to the full extent allowable under the law.

The female talking heads in this clip are guilty of a hate crime. Will they be arrested? Lord knows they're are enough witnesses to assure a conviction.

I'd better stop here...............

Oh, I hear you there Joel. Yes, if a woman did the same thing, it would be attributed to "Postpartum depression" or something like that.

Two years ago, here in Sherbrooke, a mother doused her thirteen year old son in lighter fluid and struck a match. The boy had 2nd & 3rd degree burn over 60% of his body. It was his siter who managed to extinguish him as the mother stood by and watched.

Long story short. The mother was prosecuted and found guilty of CHILD ENDANGERMENT. She was sentenced to six months probation and was ordered to see a court appointed consellor once a week for a year.

Her defence? Yup! Post-partum depression. The freakin' kid was thirteen years old!!!

At the end of year of conselling, her son was returned to her care - no shit!

My former wife & I have four kids together and after each delivery she went through post-partum depression serious enough to require medical attention. Six to eight weeks later and bingo - all was well again.

Now, had it been the boy's father who doused him in lighter fluid that man's ass would still be sitting in jail. The media would be forever vigilant in monitoring when that 'Monster' was to be released so as to do their duty and inform the public.

That's called harassement and that too is a crime. Oh geez, I'm gonna rant..........

Indeed, why should this 4-year-old boy who was brutally raped after watching his mother get murdered get all this attention? Damn man-haters. It's not like Caylee Anthony's mother is being hounded by the press or anything...

We are, as a society, attempting to figure out so as to understand Caylee Anthony's mother. What could it be about this young woman that would cause her to behave this way, we ask?

Yes, the media did take her apart - examined every part of her life, interviewed friends and collegues and so on, so as to try and understand what goes on the head of someone like that.

The young man who commited the rape and murder that we are talking about here will never be given such consideration. He has already been branded a monster, the media has made the public statement that he is unworthy of being believed and that anything he may offer as an explanation is to be discounted as nothing more than his attempts to extricate himself from a difficult situation - he is unworthy of our compassion and please somebody, anybody, put a needle in this monster's arm and save all of our children.

Joe & Jane public will fall in line with this kind of thinking simply because they don't want to think for themselves.......

I stand by my earlier statement that the two talking heads in this clip are guilty of a hate crime........I wonder if the media will pick up on that?

Joel, your opinion does not fall on deaf ears with me, however, I don't agree with you, and here's why:

Just because a woman might be given some special leeway or consideration of special circumstances, doesn't necessarily mean that everyone, or ANYONE deserves that. The way I see it, anyone that commits a crime on this level should be held 100% responsible after being found guilty.

In short, to me, given the same circumstances, it would be wrong for a woman to not be held equally responsible for the same crime, and 2 wrongs don't make a right. Right? Does this make sense?

But, yeah.........I do see where you're coming from as far as their (presumably) one-sided/man-hating comments.

A hate crime against - a murdering child rapist? Should they be a protected class now? This employer may not discriminate against employees based on sex, race, religion, age, national origin, sexual orientation, or history of murder and child rapage.

I disagree, vehemently. Nobody's trying to "understand" Caylee's mother at this point; she hasn't been convicted yet, so they're a little too busy trying to prove that she murdered her daughter to pay attention to the "why's".

In any case, the video clip was an op-ed piece, not a news broadcast. And in my opinion, nothing they said sounded particularly wrong to me, except for the presumption of guilt itself - although to be fair, he pretty much did confess. Should this fellow be convicted, then I say he is deserving of any kind of contempt anyone might have for him. There's certainly important and useful information to be had by finding his motivations (and despite what you think, I believe there will be plenty of people waiting to analyze this person - once he's in prison), but do you think there's something in his past - a "why he did it" - that could possibly make him less deserving of being labeled a monster? He's called a monster, after all, because what he did was monstrous. Is there some mitigating circumstance that would make what he did less monstrous?

If your problem is not that this fellow is being treated so harshly, but rather that female offenders are not treated AS harshly, why don't you vent your rage when such an instance comes occurs, instead? In that way your argument would be advocating for the victim. Whether or not it's your intention, right now it looks as if you're politicizing and marginalizing this boy's case, and I think that is unfair to him.

I think what we are looking at here is the ignorance society imposes on themselves by failing to think critically, not only about their own stance on issues but also the stance taken by others they listen to or come in contact with. Everyone just assumes that because they "feel" a certain way about something makes it a fact.

So Joel is right in that sense. These commentators have demonstrated their own ignorance, and by proxy the ignorance of far too many others of us in a colossal fashion. It's this kind of activity by people who have assumed the task of informing the masses that is so hard to fight when it comes to educating the public on the real issues. Far too often, rather than reporting the news, these talking heads tell us what they think the news should be. They shape it and mold it into their own world view.

If we could somehow overcome that idiocy we might actually start making progress on seeing that there is some level of impartiality in people being held 100% responsible after conviction.

If my post seemed to imply that a woman should be given special consideration for the heinous crime she commits against a child then let me apologise and explain. Woman, as adults, are just as fully responsable as men for their actions and should never be considered less so simply by virtue of the fact that they have ovaries instead of testes.

My point was that society, reflected in the media, does make these special allowances. And no, I do not agree that it should be so.

Milleferal,

You make me feel very, very sad for you.

May you never unload your hatred my friend for fear of discovering that there is nothing of substance left to you.

What he did was monstrous, but that does not make him a monster. And he isn't. He is a human being like everyone else. All four of those talking-heads are just as capable and just as likely to do exactly what he did if given the opportunity and the chance to do it. To be honest, there is no way to know that they haven't done it.



No, but if he was horribly abused as child, it would explain why he behaved as he did. It wouldn't mean that his abuse caused him to behave that way, only that it played a major role in why he thinks and behaves the way he does. I just think that labeling him a monster has very little to do with what he did and more to do with people wishing to pretend, as Wendy Murphy claims several times in the clip, that they aren't capable of such things. And the best way to do that is by making those who have committed those acts not human.

I am currently reading a book on psychopaths. I am not ready yet to give a review of it, but there are many good answers to the questions raised here. Because the person in the original article is undoubtedly a psychopath.

Without Conscience: Disturbing World of Psychopaths, by Robert D. Hare.

http://www.amazon.com/Without-Conscience...2994&sr=1-1

The book points out the dangers that judges, law enforcement, and even medical people do not know how to recognize a psychopath. People on parole boards often can't recognize a psychopath. They (the psychopath) will injure people and then laugh about it later. The book points out that there are a lot of these people around and most of them go undetected. They hurt a lot of people. Often they are quite glib and persuasive. They can exude wonderful personalities. But they are highly dangerous. They have no conscience. A lot of perps are psychopathic.

When I am through reading this book I will post more about how you can recognize a psychopath and keep from getting hurt by them.

Allen

pufferfish

Allen,

Thank you for this post - I can't tell you how à propos this is. My boy friend will soon be facing his perp in court and there is no doubt that this man is either a sociopath or a psychopath. Said boyfriend is re-living the trauma of the years of torture and rape that he was subjected to. When he haltingly describes to me some of the things that he was made to endure, he inssecently tells me that the worst of it for him was the fact that the guy would laugh in his face while subjecting to the most indecent of acts.

Geez, I'd better stop here because I feel a rant coming on and all I really wanted to do was say thank you. I'll pass along the info about the book, I'm sure it will be helpfull at least to some degree and that's already more than we have right now.

A fact that I am already at peace with.

"I fail to see how hate-mongering by uninformed talking heads is in any way going to help get our of hope message out there."

When I saw the video, I took the reactions of the women as nothing more than political posturing. Yes, I am angry too, but they seem to carry it too far. If the genders were reversed, would we hear such cat-calling?

I see a lot of passion here from certain people. And I understand it.

I hate pedophiles. I hate child murderers. I will never weep when one of them dies. My tears are reserved for the victims. Does that mean I am consumed with hate? No, it doesn't. It can mean many things such as empathy and compassion and the desire to make sure that person can never do such harm again.

I do ask that we do not judge the passion of the person who shares here. We have no idea where that person is in his recovery.

Here's a little thought: Before you judge the feelings of a man here, search your heart and make sure you are not in denial of the same feelings. And if you find you are not in denial, then please understand that feelings and emotions are neither right nor wrong. They just are. Give each man the space and understanding to walk the path he is on. One day his feelings and thoughts may change. And maybe yours will too.

Remember that it is always easier to watch the crow than to have to eat it later.