A good use of tax dollars

[Reality]

Anyone want to contribute to Michael A. Mullens legal defense?  :nod:
I am not advocating vigilantism, rather I do not wish to see this man get one day of jail time, rather counseling.  And applause.  Okay I'm kidding.  Sort of.

Accused sex offender killer pleads not guilty
Associated Press and KING Staff Reports
 
BELLINGHAM, Wash. - A man charged with two counts of aggravated first-degree murder in the killings of two registered sex offenders pleaded innocent Friday in Whatcom County Superior Court, the prosecutor's office said.

Michael A. Mullen, 35, who had said at his initial hearing 10 days earlier that he wanted to plead guilty, was arraigned before court Commissioner Alfred Heydrich. Mullen has also changed his mind about legal representation, originally saying he wanted to represent himself. As of Friday morning, public defender Richard Fasey was officially working as Mullen's lawyer.

Mullen walked into the courtroom carrying a handwritten sign with the words “I love you” along what appeared to be pictures of himself with two young children. Once inside, Mullen broke down in tears at the sight of those that were there to see him.

Conviction of aggravated first-degree murder carries only two penalties: death or life in prison without parole.

Deputy Prosecutor Mac Setter said in a statement that his office had one month to decide whether to seek the death penalty in the case.

In statements to police, letters to the media and at his initial hearing, Mullen confessed to killing Hank Eisses, 49, and Victor Vazquez, 68, in their home on Aug. 27. Each was shot once in the head.

When asked why, he wrote in a letter addressed to KING 5 News: “I will proudly give my life to see that these most likely to re-offend stay behind walls forever.”  ( :up:  perhaps misguided but you have to appreciate his willingness to protect children, something the pro pedophile politicians have no interest in.)  
Mullen also wrote that he was appointed a defense team against his wishes.

Setter told The Bellingham Herald on Friday he is "confident the statements (Mullen) made will be admissible in court," but the judge will have to make that decision.

A trial date has not yet been set, but a preliminary date may be set in November, Setter said, adding that he didn't expect the trial to begin in November.

Mullen, who turned himself in to police Sept. 5, offered a variety of motives for the killings: protecting his children, his own experience of child abuse, a desire to give his life value by protecting the community and the case of Joseph Edward Duncan III, court documents said. Duncan is jailed in Idaho, awaiting trial in the bludgeoning deaths of three people -- a crime authorities say was committed to give him access to two children for sex.

Vazquez and Eisses both served time in prison for child sex abuse and had been released several years ago. Their addresses were posted on the county's Web site of registered sex offenders.


KING 5's Jane McCarthy contributed to this report.

 

[Joe Vancil]

Let me state for the record that this sounds premeditated and calculated.  I'll be glad to contribute to the fund for PROSECUTING this guy.

Child abuse is a heinous crime.  So is murder.  The fact that it was a child-abuser who was murdered doesn't prevent it from being a heinous crime.

This guy belongs on death row.

 

[Guest_Randy]

There is NOTHING worse than child abuse -- absolutely nothing!  However, murder is equally wrong -- and the idea that you can kill someone to right a wrong.  I DO believe our penal system has some serious problems, however, applauding this man killing someone is simply wrong.  

Justice is giving a person what is due him but I'm not sure that justice should make us feel proud for giving them the penalty they deserve.  

I will say that our country needs to get a handle on how to deal with sexual offenders.  The penalty is not nearly as severe as it should be and the government seems to be clueless on how to deal with these offenders once they are serving their sentence.

[WayOutWest]

That guy should probably fry.  I can understand if his kids had been molested and he then killed the offender, in that case I'd send him a check.  He should probably go with the temp insanity defense.

If someone did that to my kids a bullet to the head would be WAAAAAAY to merciful, I'd draw it out for days.

[rickortreat]

Justice is something we agree on together.  If people are allowed to take the law into their own hands, soon we'll be back to lawlessness.

The man is a murderer, and assumes these people are a continuing threat to children.  But that's not a justification.  He has no way of knowing what the future will bring, and he denied other people life commiting the worst crime any human being can commit.  Sexual abuse is a heinous crime as well, but it doens't justify murder.

Revenge isn't justice, it's ignorance masquerading as a virtue.  No society can tolerate this type of action.  

[Joe Vancil]

Revenge isn't justice, it's ignorance masquerading as a virtue. No society can tolerate this type of action.

Not quite agreed, but close.

That said, though, were I a father, I'd be WayOutWest.  If someone did that to my kids, they'd be as good as dead.  Revenge?  Obviously.  Justice?  Probably not.  Does the difference matter?  Not at all.

Truth is that we're all vigilantes at heart, given the right circumstance - thus the need to treat the people we deal with in a respectful manner.

[Reality]

That said, though, were I a father, I'd be WayOutWest.  If someone did that to my kids, they'd be as good as dead.  Revenge?  Obviously.  Justice?  Probably not.  Does the difference matter?  Not at all.

 

So that means your judgement should be death row?:

Let me state for the record that this sounds premeditated and calculated. I'll be glad to contribute to the fund for PROSECUTING this guy.

Child abuse is a heinous crime. So is murder. The fact that it was a child-abuser who was murdered doesn't prevent it from being a heinous crime.

This guy belongs on death row.





 

[Reality]

That guy should probably fry.  I can understand if his kids had been molested and he then killed the offender, in that case I'd send him a check.  He should probably go with the temp insanity defense.

If someone did that to my kids a bullet to the head would be WAAAAAAY to merciful, I'd draw it out for days.

So how about children who have absentee or chicken hearted fathers who do nothing?  Worse yet some have fathers who do the abuse themselves.  Who protects these children.  

Part of what he gave as a motive is "Joseph Edward Duncan III, court documents said. Duncan is jailed in Idaho, awaiting trial in the bludgeoning deaths of three people -- a crime authorities say was committed to give him access to two children for sex."  Those three included the two little kids Mother, brother and boyfriend.  (The father and mother are divorced).  Duncan had already commited numerous molests in various states, the most recent being a pro pedophile judge letting him off on $5000 bail in Minnesota.

So who is gonna go WOW and Joe on these kids perp?

Again, while not advocating murder I see what Michael A. Mullens did as....I'll help pay for his legal defense.

Will you and Joe be cellmates?  Will this contribute to Joes further decent into Lakerism?
 

[WayOutWest]

That guy should probably fry.  I can understand if his kids had been molested and he then killed the offender, in that case I'd send him a check.  He should probably go with the temp insanity defense.

If someone did that to my kids a bullet to the head would be WAAAAAAY to merciful, I'd draw it out for days.

So how about children who have absentee or chicken hearted fathers who do nothing?  Worse yet some have fathers who do the abuse themselves.  Who protects these children.  

Part of what he gave as a motive is "Joseph Edward Duncan III, court documents said. Duncan is jailed in Idaho, awaiting trial in the bludgeoning deaths of three people -- a crime authorities say was committed to give him access to two children for sex."  Those three included the two little kids Mother, brother and boyfriend.  (The father and mother are divorced).  Duncan had already commited numerous molests in various states, the most recent being a pro pedophile judge letting him off on $5000 bail in Minnesota.

So who is gonna go WOW and Joe on these kids perp?

Again, while not advocating murder I see what Michael A. Mullens did as....I'll help pay for his legal defense.

Will you and Joe be cellmates?  Will this contribute to Joes further decent into Lakerism?

My wife is more than capable of taking care of buisness, alot more willing than me at least.  Don't know what type of family you've got, but there is definately a "branch" in BOTH my wife's and my family tree that would take care of buisness for much smaller offenses than what you've posted.  I know cause it's happened in the past.  As someone stated it would not be "justice", it would be "revenge", and revenge is NOT a bad thing in our book.

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

I'm going to introduce you to a new concept.  It's called PERSPECTIVE.  I know, it's an awfully long word, three whole syllables, but I think you'll find this a useful thing.  It means that the point from which you consider something has a direct impact on what you see.

If someone did that to my kid - possibly even to a friend's kid - YES, I would kill the person.  The law, in my eyes, provides inadequate punishment for those who sexually abuse children.  And when it affects ME, I'm going to see that "adequate" punishment is given.

And then, I'm going to have to step in front of a jury of my peers.  And were I sitting on that jury, I'd convict me of murder in the first degree, and find in favor of the death penalty.

Why?  Because as the parent, I don't care about the law.  I want to see PUNISHMENT administered - appropriate punishment.  But as the juror, I *DO* care about the law, and realize that while I UNDERSTAND the action of the parent, and might even do it myself, I recognize that the law has its standards for dealing with crime, and that the parent committed the crime of murder in the first degree.  "What would you have done?" is NOT a defense.  "What would you have done?" is a question that needs to be addressed by the legislature, not the judiciary.

If you take the action out of the extreme and put it into the ordinary, you'll see that we make these "judgement calls" every day.  For example:

I'm driving 70 mph in a 50 mph zone.  The cops pull me over, and they give me a ticket.

Now - consider that the reason I'm doing it is to get to the hospital to witness the birth of my child.  How would I describe getting that ticket?  I don't know about you, but I'd say, "It was worth it."

But to be fair to everyone, the law cannot draw such distinctions.  Whether it's me getting to the birth of my child, the teenager getting to his date, the businessman wanting to get to a deal, or a concert-goer who wants to get the best seats, the law has to look at each of those situations as the same.

As for this guy who killed the child molesters?  He killed them.  He says he killed them.  He says he's got a reason for killing them.  But the law says he doesn't.

So, in answer to your question, Reality, if I were to take the law into my own hands - even knowing that that's what I'd do - YES, if I were to do that, I'd belong on death row.

[Reality]

My wife is more than capable of taking care of buisness, alot more willing than me at least.  Don't know what type of family you've got, but there is definately a "branch" in BOTH my wife's and my family tree that would take care of buisness for much smaller offenses than what you've posted.  I know cause it's happened in the past.  As someone stated it would not be "justice", it would be "revenge", and revenge is NOT a bad thing in our book.

But would your family take care of it for some child outside the family who had no one to do the taking care of?

Why do you post earlier that you would only understand sending a check to help in the legal D of M.M.s actions if it were his own children?

My wife would only be the equal of what I would and have meted out to peds.
Several sit in lock up which is not good enough for me but it's all the further I could do while choosing to stay in the legal system.  Children were acquaintances, not mine.

[Reality]

Joe,

I have been introduced to your perspective a long time ago.  When and if you and Dorothy get out of Kansas or Missouri, you may see things from others perspectives, not just the one that viewing everything as how it affects self and only self.

You and WOW have posted ZERO on what you or anyone would do for children who have no protective fathers.  For that matter in the case in hand of M.A.M in King county Seattle, the childrens father was long since divorced and their mother was hacked to death by the multi repeat perp.  The father would have to break into the jail to accomplish what you and WOW would have done, altho with some creative thinking I'm sure the father could off the molester.  

That you seemingly want to do NOTHING save let the pro pedophile injustice system do its thing and give MAM a death sentence, well that is not meritous at all.  That I want to help pay for M.A.M.s defense is fine.  That you want to give him the death sentence is the lamest, most selfish, unfeeling opionion i can fathom.

[Joe Vancil]

Reality,

*NO*, I would not break the law for someone outside my own family, or close circle of friends.  I don't think much of anyone would.

You seem to think that I think it is JUSTIFIED for me to kill the person who had sexually abused my kids.  I don't think it is justified at all.  It's just that I'm not going to let "justice" get in the way of doling out what I see as a more appropriate punishment.

In other words, I'm not advocating the EVADING of the law.  If I were to kill a pedophile, whether it was my kid or someone else's that he molested, I'd expect a jury to find me guilty of murder, and put me on death row.  Oh, if I were in that situation, I'd try to avoid it - try to escape the responsibility of my action - try to have my cake and eat it too...but hopefully, society's collective intellect wouldn't let me get away with it.

In other words, were this the trial of Carl Lee Haley (see the movie "A Time To Kill"), and I were a juror, I'd be voting "Guilty."  Just because I can understand why a person did it...just because I might have done the same thing myself...that doesn't make it right.

Understand this:  I wouldn't send a check to the DEFENSE of the guy - I'd be willing to pay for the PROSECUTION!  I believe that we NEED the protection of the law.

[WayOutWest]

Joe,

Try using the "Crayola" font for Reality.

I think you, Joe, and I are on the same page.  There are so many things happening to children all over the world and most of us are not taking any major action because they are not our children.  Sad but true.

[Ted]

Joe,

Try using the "Crayola" font for Reality.

I think you, Joe, and I are on the same page.  There are so many things happening to children all over the world and most of us are not taking any major action because they are not our children.  Sad but true.

I'm pretty much with you guys, but I'm not sure I would actually kill the guy. From my perspective, my children and my wife are my greatest gift and greatest responsibility. Put in the most simple terms, I love their lives and their happiness more than I love mine. That said, I believe children need protective, loving fathers, so I'm not sure I'd deprive my boys of a father if someone abused them, at least not for their entire lives. I think I'd do more good helping them heal than letting them watch me die strapped to a table.

My solution would be to take the guy to the woods and cut his nuts off. Then I'd watch him real close, and if it looked like he still had those tendencies, then I'd take him out and cut something else off, and the mother effer would be peeing into a bag for the rest of his life.

Of course, this all hangs on me not getting caught . . . I'll just wear a ski mask.