Jury finds Mollie Shouse guilty of death of son

I've not kept up with this....thoughts?

They gave her 35 years, and that rich boy from the east end gets a pass.

This is to show us that we are just slaves. If we resist the government, well ....

Scarecrow wrote:

They gave her 35 years, and that rich boy from the east end gets a pass.
This is to show us that we are just slaves. If we resist the government, well ....

Well scarecrow,i guess they had a reason for the verdicts in each of these cases.I really dont think they tell the public everything when it comes to emotional crimes like this.

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>Well scarecrow,i guess they had a reason for the verdicts in each of these cases.I really dont think they tell the public everything when it comes to emotional crimes like this.

Yea, there was a reason alright. She is poor and could not afford innocence. The killer in the east end has money and influential friends. As for what they tell the public, they've said plenty with this.

Suddenly aware wrote:

<quoted text>
Yea, there was a reason alright. She is poor and could not afford innocence. The killer in the east end has money and influential friends. As for what they tell the public, they've said plenty with this.

SA,im not defending the east end dad,but to call him a 'killer' is going too far.A 'killer' by definition meant to kill said individual,and this guy didnt want his young son to die.

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>SA,im not defending the east end dad,but to call him a 'killer' is going too far.A 'killer' by definition meant to kill said individual,and this guy didnt want his young son to die.

Or do anything that any rational individual would have done to prevent the child's death. And no, killer is an appropriate description. His negligence resulted in a loss of life. The crimes committed by these "parents" are attrocious. The failure in the court system is an absolute travesty.

I think 35 years is a little harsh. The woman that smothered her child and tossed into a dumpster, only got 20 years for Manslaughter. Not to mention the east end dad.

This was the government making a statement. U R SLAVES..........

if I left my baby in a car in a 107 degree heat, i would welcome the death penalty... I couldnt go on with my life....what I dont understand is what the heck is going on? u dont leave ur child in the daggone car...I had my kids on my hips, in my arms, in my sight
I think that 35 years is too much, I havent heard a lot about this,except when it happened, but I mean what was she doing? shopping? working? buying drugs? I just cant really understand what happened

Suddenly aware wrote:

<quoted text>
Or do anything that any rational individual would have done to prevent the child's death. And no, killer is an appropriate description. His negligence resulted in a loss of life. The crimes committed by these "parents" are attrocious. The failure in the court system is an absolute travesty.

He forgot plain and simple.I think hes suffering enough for what he did.Negligence is not always defined as murder.

Sandy have you ever heard of a squirrel killing birds ???

Scarecrow wrote:

Sandy have you ever heard of a squirrel killing birds ???

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>He forgot plain and simple.I think hes suffering enough for what he did.Negligence is not always defined as murder.

That's my point. Why is that defense only good enough for the wealthy? She forgot too, but is facing thirty five more years of suffering at the state's hand as well as her own. I ask once again. If I 'forget' to lock up my pittbulls and they eat your family, should I also be exonerated of my role in the tragedy, simply due to my bad memory and a busy schedule? It can't be both ways or it's wrong entirely and we don't need laws. They apply to everyone or no one. She did have an excuse for forgetting, she was high. What's was his? He was wealthy?

Neither of these people are innocent of infanticide and should both face similar sentences. She would have walked too if should could have scraped up enough for 'his' attorney and the bag money. Yea, he's suffering, but not nearly as much as he should be.

sandy63 wrote:

<quoted text>What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

Nothing, I know that you have a garden an lots of wild birds and squirrels. My wife bought a bird feeder for our garden. We have lot of birds and squirrels eating together. Over the last month we have found 4 dead birds. Bitten in the head or neck. There are no cats around (my dogs kill them if they come in the yard).

I am wondering could the squirrels be killing the birds ????

I've been gardening for awhile and have been an avid outdoorsman, but have yet to know of squirrels killing birds. Who knows though. The world is becoming a strange place. I'd hate to think so though. We've plenty of both and feed them so as to keep them out of our stuff. Or we try. Good luck.

That's true these are strange times. I guess the lions aren't laying down with the lams just yet. I hate to think of squirrels are eating the birds. What's next zombies eating the faces off people.

Scarecrow wrote:

<quoted text>
Nothing, I know that you have a garden an lots of wild birds and squirrels. My wife bought a bird feeder for our garden. We have lot of birds and squirrels eating together. Over the last month we have found 4 dead birds. Bitten in the head or neck. There are no cats around (my dogs kill them if they come in the yard).
I am wondering could the squirrels be killing the birds ????

Oh...! I would say most likely cats since we've had chipmunks attacked by cats where i live.My dog has killed 2 chipmunks in our backyard this pas summer,so it could be dogs too.Squirrels run rampant in our front and backyard unfortunaley.

No it's not cats. Cats would eat the bird. Whatever is doing this just bites the birds (little sparrows) through the head. I found another dead one this morning.

I sit out there on the deck until the sun starts to get hot. I am going to try and keep an eye on things. If I can catch a squirrel in the act I will terminate his azz with extreme prejudice.

The problem here isn't necessarily the courts. It's the "12 jurors of your peers" that we currently use in the court systems.
12 people, in charge of your fate, who are from Louisville, and undoubtedly dumb as all holy fuck. That's your problem. The judge must follow the recommendations of the jury.

Nate Higgers wrote:

The problem here isn't necessarily the courts. It's the "12 jurors of your peers" that we currently use in the court systems.
12 people, in charge of your fate, who are from Louisville, and undoubtedly dumb as all holy fuck. That's your problem. The judge must follow the recommendations of the jury.

I agree somewhat, but the jury is influenced by the prosecutor and instructed by the judge. When those establishing the rules and guidelines are paid for, then it does tend to persuade the jury to move in a specific direction, lest an alternate be put into their place that will lean the desired way. I can't be convinced that money didn't have EVERYTHING to do with these outcomes. Jurors can even be swayed, especially when the economy is as it is and they don't particularly want to spend a week in a court room. Oh, and these jurors are selected. Had she had the same grand jury as him things may have been different. Or if he had had hers. Yea, it stinks. It all
Boils down to the verdict that one can afford.