The Dooleys are Done!

[poker face]

It was pretty obvious they were guilty did they really need to waste taxpayers money on a long court hearing to prove that they were not.

look at this:

http://www.pulse24.com/News/Top_Story/20020417-003/page.asp

If they don't get life in prison there is something wrong with our judice system!

 

[stir-fry]

"life in prison without chance for parole for 10 years"

if you ask me, if you kill someone and you go to jail for it, the word parole should *NOT* be included in your sentance, PERIOD.

i hope these fuckers get life..

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

There's nothing in that link about them having been found guilty or about any new updates on the trial... am i reading the right one?

Pete

 

[stir-fry]

yah, poker face was just pointing out that if they were guilty of all those former acts of violence, that it should be a no-brainer that they are found guilty of this one.

i was just bitching about the last sentance..

 

[kuba]

its easy to say that parole should not be included for anyone that kills but i would have to disagree as there are many examples of people who have killed yet would never do it again. special circumstances of course.

both dooleys will probably not be found guilty of exactly the same counts. my bet is that mama bitch gets more than papa bitch.

rip RD though

what sucks is that this sort of stuff happens and yet it takes randalls death for us to realize that there are plenty of bad evil wicked (in a bad sense) parents out there. PLENTY.

 

[Wunderbar]

The details of the crime were just horrific. Randall Dooley was subjected to animal like treatment. Most people don't treat their pets in such a callous manner.


The father apparently did not bother to talk to the firefighters who entered the house to recover Randall's body. instead he made hot dogs and cracked jokes about Jon Benet Ramsey to the police. He would make beat Randall whenever his kid had to go to the washroom! It sounds like he is actually criminally insane.

Poor kid.

 

[Subsonic Chronic]

oooooooooooooohhh... i took the title to mean that the case was done or a verdict was reached.

The Dooley's deserve nothing short of Hell as far as I'm concerned, but there are problems with their case.

Unfortunately, the court can't really prove that they tried to kill Randall. As sick as they are, there is no evidence, as far as I know, that there intent was to kill... which would make it hard to uphold a second degree murder charge.

Of course, if they end up with Manslaughter, I can't see any reason for them to receive anything short of the maximum sentence. Not that a charge like manslaughter even comes close to grasping the sick amount of abuse that they put that poor boy through.

Pete

 

[poker face]

Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
There's nothing in that link about them having been found guilty or about any new updates on the trial... am i reading the right one?

Pete

Yeah they didnt say when the jury is going to deliver the verdict?

 

[Loopster]

The truly sad thing here is that it's easier to reproduce your own offspring & later abuse them than it is to get a pet from the Humane Society.

Really makes you wonder, hmm?

 

[Loopster]

At least they make you try to ensure you can adequately care for said pet & are deserving of it ...

 

[kuba]

Originally posted by poker face


Yeah they didnt say when the jury is going to deliver the verdict?

if thats a ?uestion and no one knows when but it should be before Friday.

I guess its not IF but WHEN.

 

[LoopeD]

Originally posted by Subsonic Chronic
oooooooooooooohhh... i took the title to mean that the case was done or a verdict was reached.

The Dooley's deserve nothing short of Hell as far as I'm concerned, but there are problems with their case.

Unfortunately, the court can't really prove that they tried to kill Randall. As sick as they are, there is no evidence, as far as I know, that there intent was to kill... which would make it hard to uphold a second degree murder charge.

Of course, if they end up with Manslaughter, I can't see any reason for them to receive anything short of the maximum sentence. Not that a charge like manslaughter even comes close to grasping the sick amount of abuse that they put that poor boy through.

Pete

I know the law is extremely formal as far as proving anything goes, but beating a child so young should be at least a mandatory attempted murder charge, and if the child dies, a murder charge, due to the fact that the child is so frail compared to the adult that any serious beating *could* result in death. I realize that they have to prove intent, but to beat a child so small in anger should qualify as intent to kill.............

The system sucks.


d

 

[kuba]

^^^ but the problem is when does beating a child make attempted murder and when just assault? youre telling me that beating a child ONCE on the ass for something is attempted murder?

 

[LoopeD]

Originally posted by qtip
^^^ but the problem is when does beating a child make attempted murder and when just assault? youre telling me that beating a child ONCE on the ass for something is attempted murder?

No, I'm talking about actual beatings, not spankings or corporal punishment. I see your point, but there's obviously a difference. The law might have difficulty recognizing it, but the average human sure doesn't............





d

 

[LoopeD]

I noticed I did post saying "beating a child in anger should qualify as intent to kill". This is obviously not what I meant - I should have said Beating Up, though even this term is slang. Its difficult to put into words, and this is the problem with the law - it has to be defineable, even though you and i both know what constitutes a spanking and what constitutes attempted murder.






d

 

[kuba]

Originally posted by LoopeD
I noticed I did post saying "beating a child in anger should qualify as intent to kill". This is obviously not what I meant - I should have said Beating Up, though even this term is slang. Its difficult to put into words, and this is the problem with the law - it has to be defineable, even though you and i both know what constitutes a spanking and what constitutes attempted murder.
d

it sucks what happened to Randall. And most people know the differnece between att. murder and a spanking. But were in no position to say what that moron mother was thinking. And thats where the law really helps *gasp!* because it clearly defines that you have to think AND do to be guilty of murder.

Im not trying to deny your point im merely saying that even beating up a kid/person might not constitue murder.

We cant allow our emotions to cast a net too wide that will catch others who are not guilty.

Not that there is even TALK of changing the legislation any time soon.

qtip

 

[Balzz]

I can't believe the family members rationale for not intervening was that they didn't think Randal's life was in danger because he had survived previous beatings.

 

[LoopeD]

Originally posted by qtip




Im not trying to deny your point im merely saying that even beating up a kid/person might not constitue murder.


qtip

Kid/Person? You don't see a difference here? What about baby/person?





d

 

[LoopeD]

Originally posted by qtip


it sucks what happened to Randall. And most people know the differnece between att. murder and a spanking. But were in no position to say what that moron mother was thinking. And thats where the law really helps *gasp!* because it clearly defines that you have to think AND do to be guilty of murder.

Im not trying to deny your point im merely saying that even beating up a kid/person might not constitue murder.

We cant allow our emotions to cast a net too wide that will catch others who are not guilty.

Not that there is even TALK of changing the legislation any time soon.

qtip

Beating up a child in my book constitutes attempted murder. Case closed, no excuses.




d

 

[kuba]

Originally posted by LoopeD



Beating up a child in my book constitutes attempted murder. Case closed, no excuses.




d

dont take this the wrong way but its good youre not a legislator. you know what "no excuses" means in california? It means that if youre found guilty three times your in jail for 25 years "no excuses".

and no i didnt mean to equate a kid to a person i was saying kid OR person OR whatever.

 

[LoopeD]

Originally posted by qtip


dont take this the wrong way but its good youre not a legislator. you know what "no excuses" means in california? It means that if youre found guilty three times your in jail for 25 years "no excuses".

and no i didnt mean to equate a kid to a person i was saying kid OR person OR whatever.

If you are found guilty three times of beating a child, you deserve 25 years. Actually beating a child, not your neighbour sees you spanking little Johnny and calls the cops. The kid has cuts bruises and fractures and is hospitalized, and you are proven to be the perp.

What exactly are you arguing here?




d

 

[kuba]

Originally posted by LoopeD


What exactly are you arguing here?
d

Just that its easy to say "guilty" and come to quick conclusions about the ineffectiveness of the law and that a hard-line stance might work with the Dooleys but not with other cases. Casting too-wide a net will not make things better.

Im not really arguing i see your point.

re: the 3 strikes rule. I was not referring to beating a kid three times i was merely saying that in California they took a "no excuses" approach and hence many people are in jail for a LONG time for doing stupid crimes.

yeah yeah I know 'dont do the crime if you cant do the time'.