WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines Man Holding Baby Gets Shot

685
0
0
#1
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/03/road.rage.ap/index.html

BROCKTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.

The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.

Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for August 26.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."

Police Chief Paul Studenski described it as a case of road rage.

Bishop's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said Andrade had provoked his client during a traffic altercation.

"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.

Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.

"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."

After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.

"Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Four shots. It sounded like a cap gun," Louis McPhee, the manager of a car wash across the street, told The Boston Globe. "The guy was lying there in his own blood with a hole in his head and his arm still on the baby."

Bishop left before police arrived, but witnesses gave investigators his license plate number and police found him at his home.

Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Ok, this is the kind of stuff that reaffirms my waning faith in America as a society.
For starters, the guy leaves the original scene and then returns with intent to kill...over what seems to be nothing at this point in the story
Secondly, his lawyer gets him to plead 'not guilty'. The poor guy's depressed...so he's obviously not responsible for blowing this poor bastard's head all over his 10-month old daughter. I mean, he had no choice, right? WTF!?!?!
Thirdly, they're throwing 'road-rage' around like it's a clinically diagnosed condition or justifiable emotional state.
And finally, the guy left the scene of the murder and was arrested later.

Oh...and this is my favorite: he had a valid handgun license.

There's so many things wrong with this story that I had to share it with you fuckers. I mean...really. This guy could have been in the car behind you on the way home tonight. And you know what? This little girl will grow up without a father (and with the future knowledge of how he died; i.e. all over her), and this guy will probably get 10 years probation because our justice system rocks.

And yet we fail to see the irony when the government refuses to be held accountable for the deaths it causes. This story pisses me off 20 different ways. :mad:
 

Sinamon

~Broken Angel~
631
0
16
#2
Wow that's fucked up. It's bad to hear of situations like these. It's so sad to know what happened and how you're father died when you get older. Sometimes people remember these things...even babies. Let's just hope she's not one of the rare cases where people actually do remember. :(
 

Nailbomb

I'm just really nice.
4,475
917
332
#3
Something simlar happened to my brother.

After Desert Storm, my brother got a job in Seattle as a pizza delivery man. One day, he ended up running some guy off the road. He pulled over and they argued a bit, and my brother turned around to his car for whatever reason. The guy in the truck pulled his gun and shot my brother in the back four times. He then tried to rescuscitate him, and was still trying when the police arrived. Because of that, he got off completely scot-free. Guy didn't even get his gun taken away. That's fucked up, right? It gets worse. The guy had a child in the back of the truck who probably saw the whole thing, or possibly could have found the gun at any time.
 

kilo_juliet

i have a nuke fetish
65
0
0
#5
FlipTheState said:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/08/03/road.rage.ap/index.html



Ok, this is the kind of stuff that reaffirms my waning faith in America as a society.
For starters, the guy leaves the original scene and then returns with intent to kill...over what seems to be nothing at this point in the story
Secondly, his lawyer gets him to plead 'not guilty'. The poor guy's depressed...so he's obviously not responsible for blowing this poor bastard's head all over his 10-month old daughter. I mean, he had no choice, right? WTF!?!?!
Thirdly, they're throwing 'road-rage' around like it's a clinically diagnosed condition or justifiable emotional state.
And finally, the guy left the scene of the murder and was arrested later.

Oh...and this is my favorite: he had a valid handgun license.

There's so many things wrong with this story that I had to share it with you fuckers. I mean...really. This guy could have been in the car behind you on the way home tonight. And you know what? This little girl will grow up without a father (and with the future knowledge of how he died; i.e. all over her), and this guy will probably get 10 years probation because our justice system rocks.

And yet we fail to see the irony when the government refuses to be held accountable for the deaths it causes. This story pisses me off 20 different ways. :mad:
Government held accountable? This is not a nannie state:

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" - Warren v. District
 

magnolia

Postaholic
4,093
59
112
#6
That's so sad. That baby won't grow up with her father in her life because someone was upset that he backed up on main st.?? Wtf? That's no reason for murder. I hope that guy is in jail without parole for the rest of his life.
 
685
0
0
#7
kilo_juliet said:
Government held accountable? This is not a nannie state:

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen" - Warren v. District
The phrase 'held accountable' was not legal in nature, it was moral and used within the context of social responsibility.
But, since you obviously need to be schooled:

Your well-intentioned - but misused - quote is not a law, it's a legal precedent.
Secondly, I'm going to need you to explain 'nannie state'.
Thirdly, if you're going to quote a case that you just read about in school, you should really do your homework -->

History: In 1975 two men broke into Miriam Douglas's residence, raped and subsequently forced three women to perform sexual acts on each other. The police responded to a burglary in progress call but, finding nothing out of the ordinary, left the scene. They returned on a subsequent "investigate the trouble" call and again found nothing out of the ordinary. The three women sue the DCPD on the grounds that the police department failed to provide them adequate protection from harm.
In 1981 the D.C. Court of Appeals reviewed the ruling from a lower District of Columbia trial court which ruled "...that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted".
However, this decision wasn't about whether or not the police have no legal obligation to protect people. You left out a very important word in your quote above..."the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." This means that the government's obligation is to the general public unless both the individual and the police dept enter into a special relationship or agreement.

The Appellate Court ruled that the appellants in Warren v. District of Columbia did not fit the definition for individuals having entered into a special relationship with the police, in fact, the D.C. Court of Appeals "...unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint".

Point is, kid, that the court wasn't upholding a law, it was adhering to legal precedent (look it up if you don't know the difference). And the Court wasn't saying that those poor women didn't deserve to be protected, only that they, as individuals, did not qualify for any more or less protection that the general public. The police responded appropriately in terms of the situations they were told they were responding to. The fact that these women were the victims of violent criminal acts is not the issue...it's that people cannot expect the government to be held responsible for things it cannot reasonably prevent, especially when dealing with specific individuals rather than the public at large.

Know what you're talking about before you throw something out there that you learned last week in American History.

So, in conclusion, YOU POSTED IN THE WRONG THREAD!



EDIT: http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
87
142
#8
FlipTheState said:
Ok, this is the kind of stuff that reaffirms my waning faith in America as a society.
For starters, the guy leaves the original scene and then returns with intent to kill...over what seems to be nothing at this point in the story
Secondly, his lawyer gets him to plead 'not guilty'. The poor guy's depressed...so he's obviously not responsible for blowing this poor bastard's head all over his 10-month old daughter. I mean, he had no choice, right? WTF!?!?!
Thirdly, they're throwing 'road-rage' around like it's a clinically diagnosed condition or justifiable emotional state.
And finally, the guy left the scene of the murder and was arrested later.

Oh...and this is my favorite: he had a valid handgun license.

rant rant yada.. :mad:
Its a sick world. You can claim a million stupid reasons to kill someone anymore... road rage, PMS, felt like it... whatever... ultimately this motherfucker doesnt need the death penalty, what he needs is to have his car, home, and property sold The profits from which, as well as his life savings givin to the family of the deceased, and have it made nation wide news of what he did... oh and if he has young children of his own they get taken away... take his entire life from him and force him to live out what short time he has left(since he's 60), poor, alone, and hated.
 
685
0
0
#9
Darklight said:
Its a sick world. You can claim a million stupid reasons to kill someone anymore... road rage, PMS, felt like it... whatever... ultimately this motherfucker doesnt need the death penalty, what he needs is to have his car, home, and property sold The profits from which, as well as his life savings givin to the family of the deceased, and have it made nation wide news of what he did... oh and if he has young children of his own they get taken away... take his entire life from him and force him to live out what short time he has left(since he's 60), poor, alone, and hated.

Ooooo I like that. But, you know it won't work because he'd end up on welfare living on the taxpayer's dollar and collecting Medicare benefits...and he won't have to work. But still...I like it. :mfinger:
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
87
142
#10
FlipTheState said:
Ooooo I like that. But, you know it won't work because he'd end up on welfare living on the taxpayer's dollar and collecting Medicare benefits...and he won't have to work. But still...I like it. :mfinger:
he will still have his job, and leave him enough to get an apartment.. that way he can continue to work so he can continue paying restitutions...
 
685
0
0
#11
Darklight said:
he will still have his job, and leave him enough to get an apartment.. that way he can continue to work so he can continue paying restitutions...

Hmm...I still don't think it will ever happen, though. I mean, the death penalty is way more humane than your solution, and you see the kind of crap we get for that.
 

Hater808

The hate still Shapes me
660
0
76
#12
Nailbomb said:
Something simlar happened to my brother.

After Desert Storm, my brother got a job in Seattle as a pizza delivery man. One day, he ended up running some guy off the road. He pulled over and they argued a bit, and my brother turned around to his car for whatever reason. The guy in the truck pulled his gun and shot my brother in the back four times. He then tried to rescuscitate him, and was still trying when the police arrived. Because of that, he got off completely scot-free. Guy didn't even get his gun taken away. That's fucked up, right? It gets worse. The guy had a child in the back of the truck who probably saw the whole thing, or possibly could have found the gun at any time.
That's fucked up nailbomb. I would go after that mother fucker beat the shit out of him jungle style. Then try to resuscitate him then if he comes back alive beat his ass again until the police arrive. Then cry I tried I tired, to keep that mother fucker alive. then rinse and repeat when he is healed.
 
1,723
90
112
#13
FlipTheState said:
Hmm...I still don't think it will ever happen, though. I mean, the death penalty is way more humane than your solution, and you see the kind of crap we get for that.
The reason you get shit for that is that you are killing people, which can be construed as murder. Especially if the dude was innocent. You can't pardon a dead man, you have to be 100-fucking-percent sure, and that is impossible, usually. But his solution is pretty sadistic, I figure restitution plus rehabilitation with maybe a bit of retribution on the side. A mix of things, not just, "lock em up and throw away the key" justice.
 
685
0
0
#14
canadian_pov said:
The reason you get shit for that is that you are killing people, which can be construed as murder. Especially if the dude was innocent. You can't pardon a dead man, you have to be 100-fucking-percent sure, and that is impossible, usually. But his solution is pretty sadistic, I figure restitution plus rehabilitation with maybe a bit of retribution on the side. A mix of things, not just, "lock em up and throw away the key" justice.
Uhh...yeah. You missed the point.
Oh, and no, it's not 'impossible usually'. It's quite the opposite; as in it's usually provable, lame-ass defense strategies aside. I agree that in cases where it's not 100% then we should choose an alternative punishment...but in those cases where it is 100% provable, and the circumstances warrant the death penalty, I don't really give a shit if that person is able to be rehabilitated. Lack of consequence is one of the big problems with society. We don't have to look much further than that to figure out why people do the fucked up things they do.
I can tell you that if it was my wife or kids it wouldn't matter one damned bit what the country's stance on capital punishment was. It's easy to condemn the death penalty until you realize the irony of it. That a person can kill someone you care about in the most horrible way imaginable and still not 'deserve' the cruelty of the death penalty.
The more dangerous issue is the state of our prison system and our law enforcement system, not whether or not we endorse capital punishment.
 

Darklight

Oppressing your posts...
5,438
87
142
#15
fuck it... get the fire ants and a honey covered butt plug..
 

Boycott

Soul Doubt
1,387
1
0
#16
i hope this guy's daughter grows up and when she's about 18, goes over to this guy's house and shows him a few bullets up close...
 
1,723
90
112
#17
FlipTheState said:
Uhh...yeah. You missed the point.
Oh, and no, it's not 'impossible usually'. It's quite the opposite; as in it's usually provable, lame-ass defense strategies aside. I agree that in cases where it's not 100% then we should choose an alternative punishment...but in those cases where it is 100% provable, and the circumstances warrant the death penalty, I don't really give a shit if that person is able to be rehabilitated. Lack of consequence is one of the big problems with society. We don't have to look much further than that to figure out why people do the fucked up things they do.
I can tell you that if it was my wife or kids it wouldn't matter one damned bit what the country's stance on capital punishment was. It's easy to condemn the death penalty until you realize the irony of it. That a person can kill someone you care about in the most horrible way imaginable and still not 'deserve' the cruelty of the death penalty.
The more dangerous issue is the state of our prison system and our law enforcement system, not whether or not we endorse capital punishment.
I've said it before, there is a saying about not sinking to their level, and, two wrongs don't make a right.
The big thing is, KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG!!!
No matter who it is or what they did.
 

Boycott

Soul Doubt
1,387
1
0
#18
canadian_pov said:
I've said it before, there is a saying about not sinking to their level, and, two wrongs don't make a right.
The big thing is, KILLING PEOPLE IS WRONG!!!
No matter who it is or what they did.
How will they learn then? There's stats showing that capital punishment stops people from committing crimes... It was actually implemented, then taken down, then reimplemented... when capital punishment was there, crimes dropped, when it was taken down in about 1960, they rose, and when put back up dropped once more... I'm for capital punishment, but only for murderers... And not wasting money on it either... Just put them in a cell and leave them there to rot.
 
1,723
90
112
#19
Boycott said:
How will they learn then? There's stats showing that capital punishment stops people from committing crimes... It was actually implemented, then taken down, then reimplemented... when capital punishment was there, crimes dropped, when it was taken down in about 1960, they rose, and when put back up dropped once more... I'm for capital punishment, but only for murderers... And not wasting money on it either... Just put them in a cell and leave them there to rot.
I have seen people say just the opposite:

www.deathpenalty.org said:
Nick and Amanda Wilcox, whose 19-year old daughter Laura was brutally murdered by a mentally ill man in 2001, also supported the introduction of the bill. They cited the death penalty’s failure to reduce violent crime as one of the many reasons why they were supporting the bill and called for a redirection of resources into successful crime prevention measures, such as mental health services and gun control programs.
The point is that anyone can go to google, search for something, and pull a study out of their ass.
But even that is not the point, a drug lord can reduce the number of people who skip on paying him by killing those who do. It's called making an example. It doesn't make it right to kill people. In these situations, the ends never justify the means.
DONT KILL PEOPLE! IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE!!!
 
685
0
0
#20
canadian_pov said:
I have seen people say just the opposite:


The point is that anyone can go to google, search for something, and pull a study out of their ass.
But even that is not the point, a drug lord can reduce the number of people who skip on paying him by killing those who do. It's called making an example. It doesn't make it right to kill people. In these situations, the ends never justify the means.
DONT KILL PEOPLE! IT'S THAT FUCKING SIMPLE!!!

Would be nice if everyone would follow that advice. Two wrongs don't make a right, two in the hand is worth one in the bush, a penny saved...well, you get the idea. A witty colloquialism does not a valid social policy make, and debates built around these tired old metaphors don't make for a very convincing argument. And tell me, once people figure out that drug lords kill people that don't pay them...do people make an extra effort to pay up on time? I'm fairly certain that the 'making example' method works quite efficiently if it's used effectively.
Yeah, "don't kill people" is a great ideology, but this is the planet earth, so please come back to it. People kill people every day for the most inconsequential things (i.e. the article that spawned this thread) and we tell our governments that it's wrong to eliminate those people from the collective gene pool. So what if two wrongs don't make a right? I challenge you to tell me if ANYTHING will make right the killing of someone's father, son, sister, daughter, wife, or mother. It's not about right...it's a little about retribution and a lot about the elimination of a potential threat to social order. White blood cells do it, and I don't hear anything from the viral activists lobby (sorry, had to slip at least one sarcastic comment in).
Seriously, what entitles someone who has decided to play God (or whatever) and end one person's 'precious' life to enjoy the rest of his/hers? Because we all know that saying anything other than that is lying to ourselves...because on some level they WILL enjoy the rest of their lives. No, it's not about right or wrong. It's about restoring balance.
People say a civilized society would not resort to capital punishment...I say that a civilized society wouldn't have need of it in the first place.

EDIT:
Now, I agree that we, as a country, should put more resources into prevention. But, I also believe that we should be allowed to reserve capital punishment as a valid course of action for the most horrible of crimes. Would you really want a rehabilitated Jeffrey Dahmer living next to you and watching your daughter walk to the bus every morning?