or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Drug supplier a murderer?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Drug supplier a murderer?

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 

Really interesting story here in the Denver area. Essentially, the man who supplied a 15 year old boy with the pills that the kid ODed and died on is charged with 1st Degree Murder, and if convicted could face the death penalty. It's the first case of its kind here anyway.

Obviously we can all agree that supplying kids with drugs of any kind is bad, but is it 1st Degree Murder???
post #2 of 28
OK. Is it illegal to provide drugs to a minor? Yes. But it is certainly not first degree murder. First degree murder means you planned to kill the person or probably in this case, knew it would kill them when you gave them the drug. I am certain that the pharmacist did not plan to kill that child. How could he know that the kid would OD? It's ridiculous.

If you follow that logic then any alcohol producer, bar tender, convenient store clerk could be charged as well if they sold alcohol to someone who then drinks themselves to death or gets killed in an accident for being drunk. No Way. What about people who make cigarettes? Should they be charged with first degree murder for each person that dies of lung cancer?
post #3 of 28
I think they are trying to make an example out of him - probably in hopes to scare off other drug dealers. I don't think that will really work.
I find the idea of him drug dealing deplorable but he was not going to know that a kid was going to kill himself and he did not force those pills down the boy's throat.

I looked up first degree murder and came up with this:

MURDER, FIRST DEGREE - In order for someone to be found guilty of first degree murder the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person killed the other person with malice aforethought; and the killing was premeditated.
To kill with malice aforethought means to kill either deliberately and intentionally or recklessly with extreme disregard for human life.

Premeditation means with planning or deliberation. The amount of time needed for premeditation of a killing depends on the person and the circumstances. It must be long enough, after forming the intent to kill, for the killer to have been fully conscious of the intent and to have considered the killing.
It makes no sense - did this man plan to kill the boy? They are going to have a very difficult time proving it.
post #4 of 28
Originally posted by cla517
If you follow that logic then any alcohol producer, bar tender, convenient store clerk could be charged as well if they sold alcohol to someone who then drinks themselves to death or gets killed in an accident for being drunk. No Way. What about people who make cigarettes? Should they be charged with first degree murder for each person that dies of lung cancer?
Sometimes bartenders ARE charged when someone dies as a result of drinking, but usually it's manslaughter or 2nd degree, and it's when the person was served when obviously very very intoxicated.

In reading the article, the supplier should be charged with something, especially if he had given the boy the same drug before and it sent the boy to the hospital. But first degree? I don't think the intent to kill was there, even if the supplier had the knowledge that the drugs were dangerous.
post #5 of 28
Come to think of it - another definition of first degree murder is when a death happens in the commission of a felony - he sold those drugs which is a felony, so could that be their reasoning?

I cannot read the article for some stupid reason, it won't load for me.
post #6 of 28
I think some version of manslaughter would be a better charge alot of times ppl are overcharged which results in them not being convicted at all.
post #7 of 28
Originally posted by cla517
What about people who make cigarettes? Should they be charged with first degree murder for each person that dies of lung cancer?
Since you ask, in my humble opinion, in most states of the U. S. the answer to your question would clearly be "Yes," so long as it is proved beyond any reasonable doubt that,

a. The inhalation of smoke from these lethal objects causes lung cancer,
b. A person died of lung cancer,
c. This person's lung cancer was caused by the inhalation of cigarette smoke,
d. The defendant made the cigarette(s) which caused the decedent's death of lung cancer,
e. The defendant knew that the cigarette(s) he made could cause lung cancer, or, in many states, he had reason to so know, and
f. The defendant demonstrated a reckless disregard of the consequences of his actions.

The problem here, then, is not whether or not murder has been committed, but rather whether it can be proved. This is precisely why we see civil actions because of deaths caused by cigarette smoking but no criminal prosecutions. The prosecutor's burden of proof is just too great.

BTW, I wonder how many smokers out there never think about the possible effects secondhand smoke can have on their kitties?


post #8 of 28
Thread Starter 
Jim, with all due respect, there is also a little something called "personal responsibility" that should figure somewhere in that equation. Did the smoker know that smoking could be harmful to their health? (If they don't then they are too stupid to be held accountable for anything they do anyway.) Did the cigarette company physically FORCE the smoker to start smoking? (Never heard of Joe Camel or the Marlboro Man holding a gun to someone's head and MAKING them smoke!) Somewhere there is a personal choice to start smoking. I absolutely cannot understand how the civil lawsuits against big tobacco are winning, except perhaps by those who started smoking prior to the warnings being on cigarette packages.

By that same logic as cigarettes, then all alcohol manufacturers should be sued/convicted for every DUI and drunk driving accident, and by any alcoholic who has cirrosis (sp) of the liver. Gun and knive manufacturers should be sued/convicted for every murder using their product. For that matter, why don't we just start charging the murderers' parents since they are the ones who created the monster?

BTW, yes, I do think about what impact my smoking could have on my cats. I do not smoke in my house, nor do I allow anyone else to smoke in my house, nor do I smoke by open windows. While I can CHOOSE to inhale smoke which I know is bad for me, the cats wouldn't have that choice if I smoked in the house. Not all smokers are inconsiderate oafs.

Back to the topic at hand, one of the reasons they said they are charging the man is because of the age of the kid who died. Which, I suppose, takes a bit of the personal responsibility argument away because he was just 15 and under the law unable to decide anything for himself. I think they could have easily gotten the supplier on Manslaughter, but I think 1st Degree Murder is going to be next to impossible to convict on for all of the reasons already stated here.
post #9 of 28
Originally posted by valanhb
Jim, with all due respect, there is also a little something called "personal responsibility" that should figure somewhere in that equation.

I see where you are coming from, I understand your concerns, and I assure you that I am sympathetic with them, but I might suggest that we must all make the difficult effort, and attempt to separate the legal question here from the moral, if you will. A great author once suggested that "the Law is an ass," and the passage of a century has not changed things a whit in that respect. If we do not like the law then we take steps to change the law, but we must take care to not be blind to what the law really is.

The question of personal responsibility does not arise in a case of murder in most states of the union, as a matter of the law dealing with guilt or innocence, that is. Let me expand on one of your f'rinstances. Let us assume that one of your dearest friends is suffering terribly from an incurable disease, and she desires to end her life, but she cannot bring up the courage to do the act herself. She begs you to do it for her, and puts a loaded gun to her head and in your hand.

Your intention being only to honor her request, to end her pain and let her go with dignity, with tears in your eyes and a heart that is broken you reluctantly pull the trigger. Don't cop out here and say that you couldn't do it. If you have ever had the awful experience of having to have one of your dear kitties put down to end her suffering you may sense how one might even bring herself to do this in the case of a human being in the most extreme case. Not that you would. For the sake of our discussion just try to put yourself in that position.

If charged you could expect to be convicted of murder. The victim's "responsibility" would not be at all relevant to the question of your guilt or innocence, as a matter of law. It is, on the other hand, something a judge or jury, as the case might be, would undoubtedly take into account when considering your punishment, if any.

Another example might be found in Dr. Kevorkian's case.

In a civil case, however, a victim's complicity in his injury, or his willing acceptance of a risk, can be a absolute defense to another person's being found liable for that injury. So, once again, we distinguish between the civil and the criminal.

To finally beat the dead horse, please recognize that I have not been addressing what I think the law ought to be -- I have been addressing what the law is. Two different concepts....

All the very best,

post #10 of 28
Kellye, does it load now? If so here it is ....

Article Published: Thursday, February 05, 2004
Pill death triggers charge of murder

Adams DA: Alleged supplier knew risks for boy

By Kirk Mitchell
Denver Post Staff Writer

McDow: Boy who allegedly got drugs from him died Dec. 4.

In what may be the first case of its kind in Colorado, an Adams County man has been charged with first-degree murder after authorities say he supplied a teen with a lethal amount of anti-psychotic pills the boy was using to get high.

James Steven Keith McDow, 25, was arrested and charged Wednesday with first-degree murder, reckless child abuse resulting in death, seven counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor and selling a controlled substance to an undercover officer, Assistant Adams County District Attorney Steve Bernard said.

If convicted, McDow could face the death penalty.

The unusual murder charge comes, Adams County prosecutors say, because the suspect knew the drugs were dangerous, and he allegedly had given the teen the same drug a month earlier, sending him to the hospital. After the boy died, police say, McDow sold the same drugs to undercover police officers. And the boy's age was a deciding factor.


Oswald "Ozzie" Atkins, 15, died after taking 6 1/2 times the "therapeutic" level of Zyprexa, an anti-psychotic drug used by people with schizophrenia, Bernard said, citing Atkins' autopsy report.

"I submit that is a callous and hazardous act that merits very serious consequences," Bernard said Wednesday.

Several legal experts said they had never heard of a similar case in Colorado in which a drug supplier or dealer was charged with first-degree murder.

"That is extremely unusual," said Craig Silverman, a defense attorney and former Denver prosecutor. "I cannot recall a similar case in my 23 years of practice in Colorado."

Denver District Attorney Bill Ritter and Bernard also said they had never heard of such a case.

"It would be very unusual," Ritter said.

The boy's death comes as an increasing number of teens are turning to prescription drugs to get high.

Between 1991 and 2002, the use of barbiturates and tranquilizers doubled to about 7 percent, said Dr. Bruce Mendelson, a Colorado Department of Human Services researcher.

But the anti-psychotic drug Atkins used was the first time Mendelson said he had heard of its being abused by anyone.

The affidavit says that McDow met Atkins and several other teens at Thornton High School three months ago.

On Oct. 29, Atkins, two other boys and two girls went to McDow's apartment to get video-game equipment. McDow told Northglenn police that he then gave numerous anti-psychotic pills to Atkins and a 16-year-old friend of his, the arrest affidavit says.

While still in the apartment, Atkins and the 16-year-old boy were stumbling around and could barely move, McDow told police, according to the affidavit. The 16-year-old was later admitted to a hospital in a coma. Atkins was also hospitalized.

A few days later, Atkins' father, Art Atkins of Northglenn, said he confronted McDow about giving pills to his son. He told him to stay away. McDow denied giving drugs to his son, Art Atkins said.

"We read him the riot act," he said. "He knew the risks, especially after the last time."

Atkins said his son told him he used the drugs "just to feel good." And he promised to quit.

"I feel so foolish that I believed him," he said.

On Dec. 3, the same five teens returned to McDow's house, and McDow gave eight Zyprexa pills to Ozzie Atkins, the affidavit says.

The next morning, the teen was found dead at a friend's house, records show. An autopsy report showed that he had 490 nanograms per milliliter of Zyprexa in his system. Therapeutic levels range from 5 to 75 nanograms per milliliter.

The next day, when police interviewed McDow in his apartment, they found several prescription pill bottles, the affidavit says. Different doctors had written prescriptions for the same drug for McDow within weeks, it says.

In the December interview with police, McDow denied giving the drugs to Ozzie Atkins, saying that he wouldn't because Atkins and the 16-year-old boy nearly died in October after taking them. He said that the boys likely stole the drugs.

But during a second police interview in January, McDow admitted giving them the drugs, the document says.

"Even after hearing of this boy's death, Mr. McDow sold drugs to an undercover officer," Bernard said.

On two occasions, a female undercover officer posing as a student bought more than 100 pills from McDow, who told her not to take too many all at once "because a kid died from taking too many," the affidavit says.

Thornton High School principal Kerry Moynihan said health instructors will warn students about the dangers of abusing prescription drugs.

"This took us totally be surprise," Moynihan said. "We were not aware that kids were messing with this."

Art Atkins said his son was a football player and a good student up until a year ago.

He said 400 people, mostly students, attended his son's memorial service because he was a popular boy. More than 100 wrote notes to the family saying complimentary things about him, he said.

"He was just a great kid," he said.

I seriousely don't think it's 1st degree murder, I mean he didn't force him to take the pills, arrr. But anyways Heidi, I like your style and agree with everything you said.
post #11 of 28
My reaction to this story is that the D.A.'s office is trying both to save the taxpayers the expense of a trial by inducing the defendant to seek a plea bargain, and to get a relatively high sentence, i.e., get him to plead guilty to second degree (I don't know if that exists under Colorado law; I'm assuming that it does), rather than manslaughter.
post #12 of 28
Okay, after reading the article, thanks Sam, this guy knew he was selling to 15 year olds, he had met them at the school before, and so therefore he should have had an iota of responsbility - why sell to kids? That is where you get into more trouble.
post #13 of 28
I found a definition of second-degree murder in Colorado (and a comparison to my home state):
The difference between first- and second-degree murder often is just a question of state of mind, according to Sims. Second-degree murder in Colorado requires that the defendant acted knowingly, i.e., had intended to kill the victim.

Whether an intentional killing is classified as first-degree murder can hinge on whether the accused acted after deliberation. "There's no fixed time period for what deliberation consists of," Sims said. Colorado law defines "deliberation" as a decision to act after the exercise of judgment, so the crime is not committed in a hasty or impulsive manner. It's up to a jury to decide if there was deliberation, Sims said.

First-degree murder is a Class 1 felony and a capital offense in Colorado, carrying a possible death penalty or life imprisonment without possibility of parole.

"Heat-of-passion" slayings can be charged as second-degree murder, either as a Class 2 or 3 felony, Sims said, and sentences can range from 12 to 48 years in prison.

In manslaughter, too, "state of mind" is a key consideration, Sims said. A defendant may not knowingly intend to cause the death of someone but does so through recklessness or criminal negligence, he noted. "The challenge is for the judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys to help the jury go through and reach an understanding of some of these concepts, because they are a little more arcane and recondite than some people think coming in." In contrast to Colorado, Pennsylvania hasn't upgraded the classifications of homicide, according to Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice Ralph Cappy. "Murder in the first degree is limited to an intentional killing with malice aforethought, which distinguishes it from other kinds of murder," Cappy said. "It's the kind of homicide that carries a death penalty with it."

Second-degree murder is reserved for felony murders in Pennsylvania, and manslaughter is either voluntary or involuntary.

What's changed, according to Cappy, is that "within the last decade, they've upgraded the sentences to mandatory life."

"The general reaction in Pennsylvania is probably similar to the reaction in Colorado - where the more violence there is in a society, the more legislators and the legislature react to put more laws in the books," said Cappy. "The reaction in the legislature has been more and more mandatory sentencing, and less and less discretion by the trial courts and appellate courts."

I would tend to think, after reading this, that it would be second-degree murder in CO (recklessness or criminal negligence?), and manslaughter in PA.
post #14 of 28
Okay, first of all I want to make clear that I am %110 against the death penalty, so I would never agree on his been sentenced to death.

Also I agree that first degree murder is not appropiate, if he got involuntary manslaughter its more fitting, since the dealer was not selling it with intention to kill.

However, regardless of all this, I have got a worry: If a drug dealer is found guilty of 1st degree murder for having sold the drugs that caused the death of the teenager, then it can create a precedent. Like say, accusing of murder the person who gave some tomatoes he had grown in his backyard to a friend, and then the friend dies because of some bacteria the tomatoes had, or allergic reaction. Scary, don't you agree?
post #15 of 28
Thread Starter 
Originally posted by James Brown
The question of personal responsibility does not arise in a case of murder in most states of the union, as a matter of the law dealing with guilt or innocence, that is. Let me expand on one of your f'rinstances. Let us assume that one of your dearest friends is suffering terribly from an incurable disease, and she desires to end her life, but she cannot bring up the courage to do the act herself. She begs you to do it for her, and puts a loaded gun to her head and in your hand.
Jim, I do understand your point. However, in the f'rinstance here I think the analogy to prosecuting cigarette manufacturers would be closer to the manufacturer of the bullets in that loaded gun, rather than the person who pulled the trigger. I would certainly not argue that big tobacco are blameless, but I cannot for the life of me understand how people can sue them in civil court (where, as you said, the personal responsibility factor does play a big role), when for at least 25 years we have all known how bad it is, and still win billions.

Jcat, I like your thinking. Thinking about it, it does make sense that the prosecuters could be trying to get the maximum real penalty with a plea bargain.

Victor, I agree with you as well. If by some quirk of fate he does get convicted of this, I cannot imaging the ramifications of the precident set by this case.
post #16 of 28
Is this the only legitimate way that lawyers make money? By making the law more complex and unworkable?

Just my cynic side coming out of me.
post #17 of 28
Originally posted by valanhb
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...936045,00.htmlObviously we can all agree that supplying kids with drugs of any kind is bad, but is it 1st Degree Murder???

I think he should be held accountable for what his actions did. He supplied the Rx Drug to the kid. And he can't claim he didn't know they could kill someone. Come on now People can die from taking to many advil or Tylenol!!! And those are over the counter drugs! there's a reason for a drug to be Prescribed to control how much is given and how much to take. He needs to be convicted of 1st degree murder.
post #18 of 28
Sounds as if this comes under the "felony murder" statute. If someone dies, during the commission of a felony (in this case, selling drugs to a minor), the death is charged as first-degree murder.

It is obvious that the drug dealer KNEW that selling the drugs, to the kid was illegal AND that the kid had a risk of dying, from the drugs. THERE'S the basis for the murder one charge.
post #19 of 28
You're probably right, Cindy. Here's an article on "felony murder" in Colorado:

2 Wants to Know - Investigation

An in-depth look at the felony murder rule

Web Producer: Lechelle Yates
Modified: 2/14/2003 4:31:56 AM

For the past seven months Janet Danahey has been in prison for setting the fire that killed four people at the campus walk apartments. While this seems like a clear case of crime and punishment, Danahey's sentence has sparked a debate about the law which put her behind bars for life. In this 2 Wants to Know Investigation, WFMY News2's Lechelle Yates gives us an in-depth look at this felony murder rule.

The felony murder rule is as old as this country. It's designed for instances where two people go to rob a bank. The getaway driver waits in the car-the robber goes in and shoots the teller-prosecutors can charge both with first-degree murder.

Some say the felony murder rule is an easy way to get guilty plea. Others say it holds people accountable for taking a life. But the details of Janet Danahey's case and others around the country have put the felony murder rule on trial in the court of public opinion.

"I made a big mistake and I am sorry for it." Dressed in prison blue, Janet Danahey will have a lifetime behind bars to be sorry for burning down the campus walk apartments and for killing four people in the process. She'll also have a lifetime to think of all the choices she had that fateful night. Danahey says, "I hate to see this roller coaster happening of one bad choice makes a thousand other bad choices and I think in some respect that has happened here."

The 24-year-old college graduate says she and her two girlfriends came up with the Idea of starting the fire but she says she is the one who lit it and used lighter fluid to make the futon burn. And she says she never called fire department even after she thought the flames had spread to the porch.

But Janet says she never intended for anyone to die. "Have you ever when you were my age sped in a car with your friends and they say let's see how fast we can go. You're not thinking when you're in the car that someone could walk across the street, you're not thinking at all. Those mistakes happen and for some people the repercussions of those stupid mistakes aren't as bad."

Guilford County District Attorney Stuart Albright charged Janet with arson. For the lives lost, the law gave him a number of choices ranging from involuntary manslaughter to first-degree felony murder. Under the state's felony murder rule, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the person is committing or attempting to commit a felony like arson-even if the death is accidental. Prosecutors don't have to prove intent, an element usually required for a first-degree murder conviction.

Albright did charge Janet with first-degree felony murder. He says fire investigators told him the fire was not smoldering when she walked away like she claims. Albright says, "If you're playing with an inherently dangerous weapon you need to be responsible for the consequences. She knew someone could die. At the very least she knew someone could die when the fire was burning, people were sleeping, it's 2 a.m., it wasn't raining. She knew the fire wasn't going to out. We can prove all that beyond a reasonable doubt and she left. What's the difference with someone taking a loaded gun and shooting in to a crowded room? They didn’t intend to hit anyone because everybody is moving around but I'm not going to coddle someone who plays with inherently dangerous weapons absolutely knowing someone could die."

Jim Kimel has argued both sides of the felony murder rule as a long time prosecutor in Guilford County and as Janet's defense attorney. Kimel says, "I think the felony murder rule is the dream of every prosecutor and the nightmare of every defense every defense attorney. It's an easy way to prove that somebody is guilty of first-degree murder. The felony murder rule-it disregards the intentions of the person and focuses solely on the consequences. It throws out the first part the intentions of what you were going to do and it robs you of the fact you can't go down to involuntary manslaughter which is unintentional killing."

Ronald Wright teaches at the Wake Forest Law School. He says, "A lot people say well maybe you didn’t intend to kill but your intent was very bad. And so it's just splitting hairs." But on the other hand, he says critics of the felony murder rule say it’s unjust because it treats equally those who intended to take a life and those who didn’t. "It's inconsistent with a lot of the emphasis of the criminal law on intent and comparing the intent of criminal A to the intent of criminal B and making sure that they're roughly at the same level."

The felony murder rule dates back to England and most states have it on the books. But prosecutors are applying it to a wider range of crimes like the Lisl Auman case in Colorado. Auman met skinhead Matthaeus Jaehnig the night before they burglarized her ex-boyfriend’s apartment in the mountains to retrieve her belongings. The police chased them to Denver, where they took Auman into custody. But Jaehnig escaped on foot and shot an officer while Auman sat handcuffed in a police cruiser. Auman is serving a life sentence for murder.

In Colorado, the felony murder law says the death of anyone during a serious crime or the "immediate flight" afterward makes everyone involved in the original crime guilty of murder -- no matter who did the actual killing or when.

In California teenager Brandon Hein is also serving a life sentence. He and four friends went to rundown shack to buy drugs. Hein and two others boys started fighting with the dealers and Jason Holland stabbed to death one of them. The prosecution said the teens had really gone to steal drugs not buy them so the prosecution charged all four of the teens with attempted robbery and felony murder. And a jury convicted all of them.

George Brown is leading the fight to get rid of the felony murder rule In North Carolina. The Jamestown graphic designer says Janet's case prompted him to start the North Carolina Citizens for Felony Murder Rule Change. Brown says he thinks charging Janet with felony murder was a cheap shot. “The intent to commit to the underlying felony does not equal the intent to commit murder. I don't think of her as a murder.â€

He believes other North Carolina laws would still put people behind bars if the state dropped the felony murder rule. In Janet’s case-4 convictions of involuntary manslaughter and arson served consecutively could have sent Janet to prison for a minimum of 78 years. Brown says “She could have done a very long time in prison without any trace of the felony murder rule."

Critics like Brown won in three states and England ---all repealed the felony murder law.

Others say a judge or jury should have more than the two sentencing choices--life without parole or death. In California for example felony murder sentences range from 25 years to life. Janet says, “I think that it should be expanded to have more options to it because there is no black and white area, there is the gray.â€

And Janet says if the law is repealed or changed, then maybe some good would come from her crime and punishment. “If this has to be impetuous to get change, then I feel proud to be apart of something that will at least give others a chance, if that is why I am here then I might as well do what I can to help.â€

But she's left to wonder how the possibilities of different choices could have changed her life.

At this point opponents of the felony murder rule aren't optimistic the law will be repealed. They say the climate is not right for politicians to appear soft on crime. In fact the North Carolina Bar Association supported a measure last year to remove the death penalty option from the felony murder rule but that measure failed.

© Copyright 2004 WFMY-TV Corporation
post #20 of 28
Jcat - Janet Danahey is actually a friend of mine.

In her most recent letter to me she said: "my own sentence has not changed although I have heard good news about working on a M.A.R ((a motion for appropriate relief). That is when they shorted your sentence. Some of the friends of people lost during my stupid crime have come forward to support me."
post #21 of 28
The first time, that I heard of the felony murder statute, was about 25 years ago. Two men robbed a local bar. One was a lookout, at the door and the other held the bartender and patrons at gunpoint. During the robbery, the bartender had a heart attack and died. Both robbers were charged with murder one, even though neither of them did anything directly to the bartender. It was later plea-bargained. I think that this is a useful tool, to get criminals off of the streets. People must be held responsible for their actions.

Kelly, I'm sorry about your friend but, she WAS responsible for the deaths of those people and should be held accountable. Setting a fire is not a prank.
post #22 of 28
Kelly, I'm sorry about your friend but, she WAS responsible for the deaths of those people and should be held accountable. Setting a fire is not a prank.
She knows that she is responsible for it. She accepts responsibility. Just sad that a mistake can cost you your life and the lives of others.

It taught me not to do stupid things to people.
post #23 of 28
I read a couple of articles about felony murder in Colorado last night, including about the Lisl Auman case. I kept wondering why it seemed to ring a bell. This morning I realized that I had read a book about a very similar case in Britain in the sixties, which contributed to the abolition of the death penalty there. In that case, the young man arrested before the policeman was shot dead received the death penalty, because he was legally an adult, whereas the actual shooter was a minor, served time, and was later released. I don't remember the title, but the author was David Yallop, who has also written books about Fatty Arbuckle and the Yorkshire Ripper.
post #24 of 28
jcat - was that the bentley and craig case? - i read about that in a book about true crimes.
post #25 of 28
That was it! Derek Bentley (19) was executed, and Christopher Craig (16), the actual shooter, served time. Yallop is always taking on the (British) justice system, but in that case the execution was really uncalled for, as Bentley was subnormal in intelligence and virtually illiterate. The case was in 1952. I just checked it out at Amazon - the book is called, "To encourage the others".
post #26 of 28
Well, I think this guy should get the dealth sentance.. He gave the kid the drugs.. So, the kid over doesed and died. The Dr. should have talked to A PARENT. Not to the 15 year old he is still a kid for gosh sakes! Come on.. My gosh! Some people I tell you..
post #27 of 28
Originally posted by ilovejb1979
Well, I think this guy should get the dealth sentance.. He gave the kid the drugs.. So, the kid over doesed and died. The Dr. should have talked to A PARENT. Not to the 15 year old he is still a kid for gosh sakes! Come on.. My gosh! Some people I tell you..
It wasnt a doctor, it was a drug dealer.
post #28 of 28
Kiwideus, OMG your kididng me.. I read the artical but, I didn't see that it said a drug dealer! Man.. Then he should be charged with murder.. What a dumb guy..
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Drug supplier a murderer?