Search results

Do you really believe that in 8 years the good folks in AZ (and the national media) will have forgotten the name Christian Romero?

Woods said what he said so not to complicate the matter. Woods has no more knowledge of abuse to Christain than you or I. And you know it. This may be the toughest kid in recorded history. He shot two men with a single shot .22. Why in the world would he confide to a lawyer? Or anyone else?

The sentence affords young Romero an opportunity for Redemption. What he does on his 18th birthday is up to him. Not the court. Without a legal name change he is doomed. We all want to know his motive. Should that have not been a requirement of the Court to make a record of a killer's motives?

After more than a year the same folks are posting the same tired opinions. What will be the new judge's sentence. And who will it satisfy? A film (or at least a cheap book), of course, is forthcoming. But it will be shallow without the boy's input as to why he did the dirty deeds. Without...

St. Johns is 'poison' for Christian. We knew that from tha start. His family has neither the means, nor determination, to assure him a better life. It's sad. Not their fault. But this reality has been known from the beginning. Since the first hearing. Few, if any, corrections in his status...

Young Romero is going to prison. The only questions are which one, and why?

The judge relies on head shrinks (Major Hasan comes to mind) to determine Christian's future. And they have. Bull**** logic and all. Yet the judge won't make a decision. Replace him.

New documents that echo the same legal laziness of several months ago. If Roca was a real judge in a large city he would have been forced to deal with this case in 2008. The boy deserves better. I wonder how many tee times Roca has missed with his other lazy-*advertiser censored* lawyer buddies, while young...

It's obvious from the photos that Romero's son was not a priority.

Good for you. I could be wrong too, but I'm going on til the end. I think, and hope, the boy will go home with his natural mother, and the case will end.

Can't say the why, The how is what is debatable.

Had dad posed with his son there would have been photographs.

They are not his photos. They belong to whoever paid him.

Copyright laws. Arizona wedding picture takers. My goodness, we could argue forever, but where are the pictures of dad hugging his son at the wedding celebration? Where are the photos of the new step-mom interacting with her new stepson? Where's the photo of the new family united? There aren't...

Where's the photo of <redacted>and his dad and new mom hugging?

Thank you! When my youngest daughter (finally) married she had a four year old daughter from a previous, uh, encounter. There are at least a hundred photos with her and her new step-dad, smiling and dancing at the wedding. That was nine years ago and the family is still together.

No. They don't have a right to post your child's, or an adult for that matter, image in any form without your permission. IT'S COPYRIGHT LAW! Unless you are a criminal. Why do you think they blackout faces on TV news reports?

This was not a high dollar wedding. Are you kidding? The boys photo, posing with his father and 'new mom' should have been prevalent!

When you enter into a contract you should know the stipulations. The person with the money dictates that. A photographer will shoot a thousand pictures,(much less costly with digital cameras), and sell as many as they can to the customer. The Romeros had the final decision of what pictures...

If a person signs a contract with a photographer that stipulates the company can post any taken photos on their website without your permission, that person would be a fool. What happens is: you look at the proofs (of which there will be hundreds {you pay by the print]. Normally, in the real...