FL FL - Danny Rolling, Gainesville Ripper, 8 known victims LA/FL 1989-90

[Details]

Interesting - but I disagree. I think we've both communicated our points of view though, so I'll leave it there.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>Interesting - but I disagree. I think we've both communicated our points of view though, so I'll leave it there.<

Okay I understand and you have a right to believe what you want to. I haven't run across anyone who has been able to defend the eagle egg thing either

 

[Details]

>Interesting - but I disagree. I think we've both communicated our points of view though, so I'll leave it there.<

Okay I understand and you have a right to believe what you want to. I haven't run across anyone who has been able to defend the eagle egg thing either

<sigh> If you want me to - no problem.

In the state of WI it is illegal to destroy an eagle egg or eggs of any migrating bird. Yet it is not illegal to destroy an unborn child. This is situational ethics. One unborn life (that of an eagle) is valued more than another (that of a human child). An adherent to situational ethics could say well, I think it is okay to destroy a human embryo if for example the mother was raped, or the unborn child was deformed or damaged or if the embryo could benefit another like being used for stem cell research. They would believe that since the result or ends was for a more loving good then it would be okay.

OK, the problem with destroying an eagle egg is that we're trying to breed more eagles - as an animal whose opinions we do not consult in any way - not that we consider an eagle egg to be equal to a full grown eagle. So - this is perfectly consistient with considering both an embreo and an eagle egg not the same thing as a baby human or a baby eagle.

But for the situation - it's not the same. An eagle egg doesn't injure or kill people, just by it's existience. An embreo or fetus can and does. So, the situation is not as you described it, an eagle egg being more precious than a fetus. It's about the price for leaving either alone. Leave the eagle egg alone, and - no problems - unless we start having too many eagles, in which case we'll start grabbing their eggs again (which I presume would have no opinion on your opinion or mine about abortion). The goal is to have more eagles, and the price is very, very small. For a fetus - they need to be very, very protected, and there are a lot of laws protecting them (workplace laws protecting pregnant women from work that may harm it, for example) - but the laws also protect the pregnant woman's right to live and chose how she's going to live. An eagle egg won't impact any person that way - there's just no comparison. I recently had a child - and a nice case of AFLP - the most common quote about it in my medical research, "significant maternal and fetal risk of mortality". Since when does an eagle egg have anything even close to that? Situations matter.

Opponents of abortion say no exceptions - no situational ethics - meaning that a mother who will or may die if she carries a child to term, carrying a child known to be ancelephaphic (I know I didn't spell that correctly - but a medical condition where the fetus develops without any brain - doomed to die within minutes or hours or days on life support, as soon as it is born) - well, she's just out of luck. Situational ethics, maybe - but I find it extremely unethical not to consider the situation.


We also don't kill eagles - but we do execute people on death row - is that another case of situational ethics?

 

[Sherlockmom]

>OK, the problem with destroying an eagle egg is that we're trying to breed more eagles - as an animal whose opinions we do not consult in any way - not that we consider an eagle egg to be equal to a full grown eagle. So - this is perfectly consistient with considering both an embreo and an eagle egg not the same thing as a baby human or a baby eagle.

But for the situation - it's not the same. An eagle egg doesn't injure or kill people, just by it's existience. An embreo or fetus can and does.<


Oh my. I just picked my jaw off the floor. So in other words, we aren't trying to breed more humans so it's okay to kill them before they are born because we are just trying to pre-empt them possibly killing or injuring someone in the future. This is what we call situational ethics. You explained it perfectly.

Interesting use of pretzel logic. I didn't think there was much left that could shock me. I guess I was wrong.

Thanks.

 

[Sherlockmom]

>We also don't kill eagles - but we do execute people on death row - is that another case of situational ethics?<


Those people have committed a crime. They murdered another human being. Unborn babies on the other hand have committed no crime except trying to be born.

My daughter just gave birth to a son this past December and had a very difficult pregnancy too and her life could have been in danger as the placenta was located in the wrong place and could have caused severe bleeding and a life threatening situation. Never did it cross her mind to kill her baby because he was "threatening" to her. Nor would she even consider playing God and aborting a child because it had a physical or mental handicap.

It's interesting how there can be such an uproar about mothers who kill their children after they are born like Andrea Yates but with some it's okay if they would have done it just a few months or years prior. Again. Situational ethics.

It's probably best that this topic ends. We are so far apart in moral beliefs that we would never even come close to any agreement.

 

[Details]

>OK, the problem with destroying an eagle egg is that we're trying to breed more eagles - as an animal whose opinions we do not consult in any way - not that we consider an eagle egg to be equal to a full grown eagle. So - this is perfectly consistient with considering both an embreo and an eagle egg not the same thing as a baby human or a baby eagle.

But for the situation - it's not the same. An eagle egg doesn't injure or kill people, just by it's existience. An embreo or fetus can and does.<


Oh my. I just picked my jaw off the floor. So in other words, we aren't trying to breed more humans so it's okay to kill them before they are born because we are just trying to pre-empt them possibly killing or injuring someone in the future. This is what we call situational ethics. You explained it perfectly.

Interesting use of pretzel logic. I didn't think there was much left that could shock me. I guess I was wrong.

Thanks.

I knew you'd do this - but I still gave it a try. OK.

But - really - nice clip. It's equal demanding a person risk their health and life, and telling hunters not to destroy eggs - those two are equal - yeah, we're way, way, way, way too far apart to discuss this.

 

[GlitchWizard]

But seriously, though, I can honestly say I disagree with you about family members wanting punishment in either situation. If my family member was killed because he/she ran a red light, I wouldn't expect or even want any punishment put on the person who my family member collided with. The other person wouldn't be charged with involuntary manslaughter because it would have been MY family member who ran the red light. Now, if someone else ran a red light killing my family member, sure I would expect some sort of punishment. Even though the end result is death, there is a HUGE difference between involuntary manslaughter and cold blooded murder.

There is a huge difference for YOU. But YOU are smarter than the av-er-age bear (to quote Yogi!) Think of gang members - "Your third cousin killed my in law's nephew, so someone in your gang has to die." Same with racists - "That white policeman killed a black boy in Miami, so I'm going to kill a cop to get his back." or the flipside "Black man raped a white girl, so I need to kill a black man in revenge. Don't even think that just because I didn't get the grammar and accent right that this is a rare frame of mind.

The reason we have "Caution: Do not use hairdryers in the bathtub" on our hairdriers is because many, many people do not use their head for anything besides carrying their hair around.

People kill people over television sets - not everyone is going to think of the situation of why their friend/family is dead - just that they are. Many people refuse to blame the victim of stupidity for running red lights or whatever the situation might be.

And - to those who asked: My daughter is now 14. She was probably 9 when she asked the question. We've had several talks, and she's a really good kid.

 

[southcitymom]

Free: Killer's final confession a relief to one-time suspect

By BILL TORPY
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 11/19/06

The police came for Hal Carter on a Friday afternoon in November 1989.

As the 39-year-old lawyer sat at his desk in his Shreveport, La., office, reporters and TV crews gathered outside.


Hal Carter plans this week to release the bird that fell at his feet as he stood outside the site of the execution of a killer. Not until later did Carter learn the condemned prisoner admitted to an earlier triple killing, one in which Carter had once been a suspect. Though never arrested, Carter's life was never the same.

Word had leaked out that he was a prime suspect in the gruesome murders of his former girlfriend, her father and her 8-year-old nephew.

Police, who had interrogated Carter the night before, called that afternoon to tell the attorney to stay put, that they were coming over. He was sure they were coming to arrest him.

But, despite that sense of panic and doom, Carter kept telling himself that, in time, he would be ruled out as a suspect, that ultimately investigators would zero in on the right person and he would be vindicated.

He could never have guessed it would take 17 years or that absolution would come from a serial killer.

Carter now lives in a tidy, yet cluttered, Alpharetta apartment and practices law nearby. The 56-year-old says his career — and his life, for that matter — have never recovered from those weeks in 1989 when his world spun out of control.

He has struggled with depression, alienation and loneliness.

More at link:


http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2006/11/18/1119metcleared.html

 

[s_finch]

How freaky is that that Rollings drew a picture with a bird and then one feel at Carter's feet???????????????????

 

[imstilla.grandma]

The Infamous 'Ripper' of Gainesville, Florida To Get 20/20 Profile on ABC

 

[Hockeyfan158]

Did anyone consider that Rollings might have been the Houston Decapitator in the summer of 1979? Where five people were murdered in a similar fashion to Rollings killing in Gainesville? Rollings would’ve been 25 years old in 1979 and was living in Louisiana the murders are eerily similar so i think he could’ve done it.

Horrific killings in 1979 left bodies headless

Thousands of people fleeing crumbling Rust Belt economies were pouring into the Bayou...

www.chron.com

The Houston Decapitator — Trace Evidence

In the summer of 1979 Houston, Texas was under siege. Crime was rising, murder numbers were off the charts and a violent and brutal killer emerged, slashing through five victims in just a few months leaving behind horrifying crime scenes and shattered families.

www.trace-evidence.com

 

[Kell1]

Did anyone consider that Rollings might have been the Houston Decapitator in the summer of 1979? Where five people were murdered in a similar fashion to Rollings killing in Gainesville? Rollings would’ve been 25 years old in 1979 and was living in Louisiana the murders are eerily similar so i think he could’ve done it.

Horrific killings in 1979 left bodies headless

Thousands of people fleeing crumbling Rust Belt economies were pouring into the Bayou...

www.chron.com

The Houston Decapitator — Trace Evidence

In the summer of 1979 Houston, Texas was under siege. Crime was rising, murder numbers were off the charts and a violent and brutal killer emerged, slashing through five victims in just a few months leaving behind horrifying crime scenes and shattered families.

www.trace-evidence.com

My rue of thumb with serial cases, is anytime we see 5 or more victims you can usually add another 3-7 victims.