American cage fighter 'rips out still-beating heart of training partner

[88GT]

1. I'm not sure why you rolled your eyes

Closest thing I could post conveying exasperation

I didn't say equal treatment WOULD happen, I said it would be just if it did.

I don't necessarily disagree

2. What exactly are you asking?

Come on. You're not that dense. What exactly would be "just" under our legal system? His behavior wasn't murder with intent, and given the "out of his mind" aspect, it's hard to say he even knew what he was doing. It doesn't seem "just" to punish a man for something he didn't intend to do and wasn't aware he was doing.

The actions that led to this were completely within his control, yes, but if we start arbitrarily connecting the dots between the actions a person takes in any given day, we're gonna open a really bad can of worms.

Yes, they were both doing something illegal, but only one of them tortured and murdered someone.

To play the devil's advocate: the victim knowingly and willingly joined in the same activity that led to his death. If we're gonna fault Mr. Killer for his actions, then doesn't Mr. Victim have some liability as well. I mean, after all, they were both doing something illegal.

That's why I say it's a difficult issue to nail down what "justice" would be under our legal system. In any other situation, when two criminals are participating in criminal activity and one of them dies, the majority of responses would be "play stupid games..."

Why is this one different?

Disclaimer: I'm not defending Mr. Killer. Just pointing out that it's not always that black and white.

 

[redneckmedic]

Disclaimer: I'm not defending Mr. Killer. Just pointing out that it's not always that black and white.

Sure it is... one man is dead the other is alive. One man used a knife as a weapon, removed several organs out of his body, and tossed them into a fire. Then went back and Removed the mans still beating heart. Tell me there wasn't intent there.......

 

[jclark]

Personally, I'll not fight to legalize any other drug but marijuana. However, I'm not going to fight against other drugs being legal. My reasoning is that Marijuana and shrooms are naturally occurring, whereas coke, heroin, X, Meth are all synthetic drugs made by man. As such they should be regulated, IMO.

In this case, the ONLY way he would have been THAT bad on Shrooms is one or two of two things. A) He was already freakin wacked out nuts before he took the shrooms, and/or B) the concentration of the shroom tea was so high that his body couldn't handle it.

With LSD(Acid) and Shrooms, it drags your brain to a level that is close to death and that's one reason you hallucinate so bad. The more you take, the closer to death you come, the harder you trip. Many successful insanity cases have been because the defendants were users of these two drugs. Many, many more were users of prescribed drugs. Go figure that one out.

Heroin and Cocaine also come from a plant.

 

[SavageEagle]

Your honor, it was the alcohol that caused my client to drive impaired, as he thought he was only buzzed, and it was the alcohol that caused him to loose control of his already speeding vehicle, cross the yellow and kill that family, it was all the alcohol. Yup that will work.

Have you taken LSD or Shrooms? Have you discussed their effects with a doctor that specializes in them? I have. I realize you work in the medical field, but that doesn't mean either you or I or experts. I'm just relaying what I learned from what a doctor at the U of I in Champaign explained about his research.

And your comparison of Alcohol vs. Shrooms is the only here. There is no comparison. When you liquefy shrooms into a "tea" like you do with peyote, it becomes much more concentrated. A small sip is the equivalent of eating a $20 bag. If he drank a whole cup of tea, he truly was not in control of his own actions.

I'm not saying what he did is excusable because of the drugs. I would prefer he rot away in a jail cell with no food until he meets his maker.

 

[SavageEagle]

Heroin and Cocaine also come from a plant.

Coca comes from a plant. Cocaine is made through a process. Can't say I know how Heroin is made, but in it's usable form as a drug, it's made through a process.

Many of the prescription drugs come from natural and man made sources, but are made through a man made process.

Marijuana, shrooms, peyote, all come from a plant that is usable right out of the ground.

 

[Benny]

Closest thing I could post conveying exasperation

<-- That's not better?

Come on. You're not that dense. What exactly would be "just" under our legal system? His behavior wasn't murder with intent, and given the "out of his mind" aspect, it's hard to say he even knew what he was doing. It doesn't seem "just" to punish a man for something he didn't intend to do and wasn't aware he was doing.

I guess I am when a post is not only confusing, but also not well written...Here is your post again:

Within the realm of our legal system. Anything else is, and should be, left to a higher power. Or are you advocating that the behavior itself is okay based on who is on the receiving end?

Please tell me how those last two sentences are mutually exclusive...Are you saying that because I think the killer should get what he dished out, I think the killing was OK because the victim was on drugs too?

The actions that led to this were completely within his control, yes, but if we start arbitrarily connecting the dots between the actions a person takes in any given day, we're gonna open a really bad can of worms.

There's no reason to spell it out again, so:

Your honor, it was the alcohol that caused my client to drive impaired, as he thought he was only buzzed, and it was the alcohol that caused him to loose control of his already speeding vehicle, cross the yellow and kill that family, it was all the alcohol. Yup that will work.

To play the devil's advocate: the victim knowingly and willingly joined in the same activity that led to his death. If we're gonna fault Mr. Killer for his actions, then doesn't Mr. Victim have some liability as well. I mean, after all, they were both doing something illegal.

Wait, are you saying this is the first time in this thread you are playing devil's advocate?

That's why I say it's a difficult issue to nail down what "justice" would be under our legal system. In any other situation, when two criminals are participating in criminal activity and one of them dies, the majority of responses would be "play stupid games..."

Why is this one different?

Come on. You're not that dense.

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[88GT]

Sure it is... one man is dead the other is alive. One man used a knife as a weapon, removed several organs out of his body, and tossed them into a fire. Then went back and Removed the mans still beating heart. Tell me there wasn't intent there.......

You'd do well to stay away from that logic as your sole source of justification.


I don't think his intent was to kill the guy, no. I think he thought death was the only way to bring about the ultimate goal (stopping the devil), but I don't think his end goal was to kill his buddy.

Whatever he gets charged with and/or convicted for is probably the best we as mere mortals can do. His actions are so grotesque and violent that jail time or even the death penalty as we dispense it now, doesn't even come close to what he did.

On the other hand, it wasn't a willful, rational act at all. Seems kind of unjust to judge someone according to criteria created for rational acts. A disconnect of sorts. Not that I'm excusing him. There is a difference. He clearly chose to participate in behavior that led to the killing. He clearly holds the ultimate responsibility. I'm not saying he doesn't. Not at all.

Just discussing what is "just" given the circumstances and the limitations of our current judgment system.

 

[antsi]

but, drugs should be legalized.

Because obviously, if shrooms had been legal, this crazy guy could have gotten some and ripped somebody's heart out. Thank goodness they're illegal, so this didn't happen!

 

[88GT]

<-- That's not better?

No, I don't believe it is. That particular face implies a sense of anger and/or animosity that I didn't have. But it is getting closer to the level of annoyance at being told what smillies I should and should not use to convey the emotions that *I* am feeling. Besides, you would have found fault with that one too, saying I was being overly nasty or snarky with it.

I guess I am when a post is not only confusing, but also not well written...Here is your post again:

It was written perfectly well. I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant. That you add or subtract from the meaning or infer things not intended, I can't help.

Please tell me how those last two sentences are mutually exclusive...Are you saying that because I think the killer should get what he dished out, I think the killing was OK because the victim was on drugs too?

My intent was to frame the discussion of what is "just" within the limiting realities of our current legal system. If you are advocating that our current legal system dispenses as punishment what he did as a crime, I believe my statement becomes a little more clear. It would be poetic justice if he died a similarly awful death, true, but I don't think that's within the jurisdiction of our current legal system to mandate. Do you disagree?

There's no reason to spell it out again, so:

I never argued his altered state was an excuse for his actions. . But it is likely a defense since the law is written specifically for crimes committed with full faculties and rational thought. It's pretty clear he wasn't rational or in full control of his faculties. Is it just to try a man based on standards and criteria that don't fit the scenario? On the one hand, holding a man responsible for behavior he didn't have full control over seems overly harsh (on the surface, extenuating circumstances such as in this case notwithstanding). On the other, allowing such behavior to go unpunished to the fullest because of a technicality of the law's standard doesn't seem like much justice at all either.

Wait, are you saying this is the first time in this thread you are playing devil's advocate?

Nope, just clarifying it a bit since my failure to do so in an obvious manner the first attempt obviously led to some problems.

Pot, meet kettle.

Not really, but I can see how you would think that based on your assumptions.

 

[antsi]

Most murder charges come with "intent." I'm thinking that's going to be a hard one to prove.

He took the shrooms voluntarily.

If I do something intentionally that makes me crazy, and when I'm crazy I kill someone, then I'm still responsible for the overall chain of causation.

I can't point a gun at someone and pull the trigger and then say I have no control of the bullet once it leaves the gun. If I initiate a chain of events, especially by doing something illegal, then I'm responsible for the outcome.

Your honor, it was the alcohol that caused my client to drive impaired, as he thought he was only buzzed, and it was the alcohol that caused him to loose control of his already speeding vehicle, cross the yellow and kill that family, it was all the alcohol. Yup that will work.

Bingo, at least from the moral/ethical standpoint.

From the legal standpoint, as far as what someone might be able to get away with in court, I have no idea. Sometimes it seems like judges are on shrooms. So I guess it's possible they might use this defense successfully as a legal tactic, but in no way does that mean it's right.

 

[Benny]

No, I don't believe it is. That particular face implies a sense of anger and/or animosity that I didn't have. But it is getting closer to the level of annoyance at being told what smillies I should and should not use to convey the emotions that *I* am feeling. Besides, you would have found fault with that one too, saying I was being overly nasty or snarky with it.

Man, I really hate debating via internet. Everything gets misconstrued. From your post, it seemed as if you were rolling your eyes at me...You may have, but the above post says you were rolling your eyes at our legal system(please correct me if I'm wrong).

It was written perfectly well. I meant what I wrote and wrote what I meant. That you add or subtract from the meaning or infer things not intended, I can't help.

I'd hope so, since you didn't use purple and I don't consider you a troll...It still didn't make much sense.

My intent was to frame the discussion of what is "just" within the limiting realities of our current legal system. If you are advocating that our current legal system dispenses as punishment what he did as a crime, I believe my statement becomes a little more clear. It would be poetic justice if he died a similarly awful death, true, but I don't think that's within the jurisdiction of our current legal system to mandate. Do you disagree?




I never argued his altered state was an excuse for his actions. . But it is likely a defense since the law is written specifically for crimes committed with full faculties and rational thought. It's pretty clear he wasn't rational or in full control of his faculties. Is it just to try a man based on standards and criteria that don't fit the scenario? On the one hand, holding a man responsible for behavior he didn't have full control over seems overly harsh (on the surface, extenuating circumstances such as in this case notwithstanding). On the other, allowing such behavior to go unpunished to the fullest because of a technicality of the law's standard doesn't seem like much justice at all either.



Nope, just clarifying it a bit since my failure to do so in an obvious manner the first attempt obviously led to some problems.

Not really, but I can see how you would think that based on your assumptions.

I'm way too tired to quote and reply to each individual sentence right now, so I bolded the few sentences I wanted to bring to attention...

1. You may have been framing a discussion on what is "just" according to our court system, but I simply stated what I thought would be just.

2. You really like the word obvious. BTW, if something is "obvious" saying the word "obvious" isn't necessary.

3. Yes really, but if you can't see the difference, I can't help you.



BTW, we are arguing two different points, so our entire debate is moot.

 

[samot]

Have you taken LSD or Shrooms? Have you discussed their effects with a doctor that specializes in them? I have. I realize you work in the medical field, but that doesn't mean either you or I or experts. I'm just relaying what I learned from what a doctor at the U of I in Champaign explained about his research.

And your comparison of Alcohol vs. Shrooms is the only here. There is no comparison. When you liquefy shrooms into a "tea" like you do with peyote, it becomes much more concentrated. A small sip is the equivalent of eating a $20 bag. If he drank a whole cup of tea, he truly was not in control of his own actions.

I'm not saying what he did is excusable because of the drugs. I would prefer he rot away in a jail cell with no food until he meets his maker.

i would be curious to know the percentage of posters in this thread that have actually taken acid or shrooms ( not just researched the effects of someone else ingesting them).....

If the dudes brain is not mentally strong enuf to be able to still cope( or diffreintiate between reallity & the trip) while under the effects of either of the aformentioned halucinagenics.....i dont care howmuch he has taken or how it was taken, he (IMO) is already a nut job........
he would have commited the same crime, Eventually, minus the mind altering aids

 

[Gamez235]

I hate that the media label this guy a cage fighter. He's had a whopping 1 pro fight.. Fuel to the stereo type..

 

[SavageEagle]

i would be curious to know the percentage of posters in this thread that have actually taken acid or shrooms ( not just researched the effects of someone else ingesting them).....

If the dudes brain is not mentally strong enuf to be able to still cope( or diffreintiate between reallity & the trip) while under the effects of either of the aformentioned halucinagenics.....i dont care howmuch he has taken or how it was taken, he (IMO) is already a nut job........
he would have commited the same crime, Eventually, minus the mind altering aids

I can say I have. Never taken enough to make me do something like that though.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Because obviously, if shrooms had been legal, this crazy guy could have gotten some and ripped somebody's heart out. Thank goodness they're illegal, so this didn't happen!

It's like gun laws it keeps the legal people legal.

Illegal narcotics are bad but some people are too stupid to realize it.

 

[Srtsi4wd]

My .

This dude was on way more than a bad shroom trip. My guess is his tox report will show a cocktail of prescription SSRIs and anabolics with who knows what else mixed in. I'm betting he was b*tsh!t crazy before he drank the fateful spot o' tea, it just greased the skids.

 

[samot]

I can say I have. Never taken enough to make me do something like that though.

same here...
Ive seen the world in digital

never wanted to commit morbid acts to humans tho !

ah but the laughter, laugh till you hurt

 

[SavageEagle]

same here...
Ive seen the world in digital

never wanted to commit morbid acts to humans tho !

ah but the laughter, laugh till you hurt

Look at that! We agree! Yea, I never wanted to commit any violent act period. One time I thought everyone was looking at me while I drove so I went home, paranoid as all beat hell!

Seriously though, I had a friend that went to a party with me. He was a bit "off his rocker" and a little high strung to begin with anyway. When we got to the party and I was on my second Colt 45, he took two sugar cubes that were soaked in LSD. More than I've ever seen anyone take. He went "Marine Style" on everyone said he was going to kill them all. Only person he would listen to was me. They kicked us out and I had no choice but to drive him, while half drunk to a truck stop I knew well. Kept him calm until he came down.

It was not a fun night and I was unarmed and scared to death he would snap on me at any moment. Trust me. Drugs like LSD can bring that side out of a person real easy and they can become dangerous like that.

It didn't help this guy in the article was a professional fighter and had the ABILITY to do these things, let alone the WILLINGNESS in his own mind to do it.

 

[BtownBlaster]

The problem with trying a defense based on his intoxication is that he voluntarily became intoxicated. Now, if someone had slipped him the tea without his knowledge, I would think it might be a valid defense, but as it is, I think his lawyer is just blowing smoke.

 

[samot]

Look at that! We agree! Yea,

Dangit, must gonna be a full moon..... Sorry bout that SE ingo: