Rusty Yates

[Mike Tx]

Many people think Rusty Yates should be held accountable for the death of his children. People are saying that he knew Andrea Yates had violent thoughts toward the children. He says he knew she thought bad things about the kids. Many people think he should be sent to prison as well for this.

I think this is wrong, and dangerous to freedom. If we allow travesties like this to exist, then before long we won't have enough prisons to hold all the poeple we'll be sending there. Because they knew someone who commited a crime had bad thoughts about the crime they commited before they commited it, therefore they are guilty. Thought crime.

We could even carry this even farther and say that the people who thought Rusty Yates knew that Andrea Yates had bad thoughts are guilty as well, and should be locked up for not acting on these thoughts.

Do we really want to lock up people for what we think they knew about what someone else said they think?

I don't.

[207]

Originally posted by MikeTx:
Do we really want to lock up people for what we think they knew about what someone else said they think?
I don't.

No,... and wouldn't that fall within the relm of hearsay?. Having delt with her problems over the years Rusty probably thought Andrea was having another one of her "bad" days and didn't think anything of it because nothing had happened in the past.

I have an older brother who is a manic depressive and although he's been fine in the past 10 - 15 years (so long as he remembers to take his medicine) but, has previously done some illegal things... property damage, verbal threats mostly. He's under a doctor's care as he has been for at least 25 years.

The medical people are the "experts", should see the changes, and know what may "trigger" a person off long before anyone else.

[Watchman]

"Do we really want to lock up people for what we think they knew about what someone else said they think?"

The door is already open. What do you think "hate crimes" are ?

Most hate crimes are nothing more than not being "politically correct" in your thought process.

"Politically correct" as defined by pinko communist liberals.

[Mike Tx]

I know full well that hate crimes are a crock. This yates thing is just another step in that direction. Only this time, it's more clearly aimed at what is in someones head. With the hate crime you have to have made statements that you hate someone in some specific way because of what they are, or they are not. This crap is pure thought crime.

[CinaC]

Here's a problem. A lot of times, the same people bashing "hate-crimes" are the same ones wanting to toss people in jail for burning flags (since the government disposes flags by burning them, you're essentially making thought illegal when someone protests something by burning one).

Now, I agree that thought = crime NOT! Hate crime legislation is bogus.

Er. Maybe I went on too much.

Rusty Yates has already suffered tremendously. He's lost his children, and his wife. Even if he is guilty of something, what good is throwing him in jail going to be ... ?

[huff317]

Personally, I have five kids, and IF I thought my wife had the capability/and or legitimate desire to do them in, I don't think I would have knowingly left her to her own devices. If she did anything, she'd have to deal with ME. As it stands, he (Rusty Yates)and GOD alone know the truth, and he will answer to Him for it.
Out

[Mike Tx]

That's right. The problem I see is that people are trying to make us believe he absolutly for certain knew she was gonna kill them.

[Zamboni]

Heres a bigger problem with going after Rusty. Andrea's defense was she was insane but the courts rejected it. But if you go after Rusty by saying he knew his wife was insane and he shouldn't have endangered his kids aren't you opening up a whole can full of worms. Basically the prosecutors would have to admit that Andrea was insane even though they claimed in the trial she wasn't and that would give her lots of grounds for appeal.

[207]

I don't think Andrea was insane at the time. IMO, she had some sort of motherhood issues with a bunch of kids that she didn't know how to, or was not mature enough to, deal with and she methodically eliminated that problem.

I don't think Rusty had a clue it was going to happen at that time. Andrea was probably stressed out from the kids to a point where she just snapped and decided to get rid of the stress, possibily thinking that things would return to as they were when they were first married.

A temporary lapse in logical thinking maybe, but not insanity.

[celia]

Well, as a very religious, homeschooling, mother of ten children, I don't think she was stressed out because she had a bunch of kids. Mine don't stress me out at all. In fact, the most peaceful day I can imagine is just staying home and relaxing with my kids doing nothing.

I do think she had wacko head problems before she even got married, and they got worse possibly because of an overbearing husband who let her get involved with a religious fanatic. I really think, however, that her biggest problem was hormonally caused depression and poor treatment thereof. I don't think her dh should be prosecuted, but I do think he holds some responsibility in a moral sense. I think it's pretty irresponsible to leave an extremely depressed woman who had attempted suicide twice, alone with 5 young children.

I'd be more inclined to prosecute the doctors who handled her care so poorly.

[kd5hqd]

Ok, after what I'm about to say, let the flak fly! But here's how I honestly feel about the whole thing, and this is coming from the most conservative Texan you'll ever meet in your life.

Andrea Yates is a very sick person. This is why you don't stress with 10 kids Thalia. She just has problems dealing with her kids, and not everything's right upstairs. As the person who saw her EVERY DAY and has the most intimate relationship with her than anyone else on Earth, Rusty Yates should have been the first one calling everyone he could think of when his wife started displaying her symptoms. The fact that he did nothing to help his wife's illness is atrocious, and I would personally be the prosecutor in his case if I could. Do I think he's guilty? Damn straight I do.

For those of you saying "Should gun makers be held accountable for a shooting?" I say no, they shouldn't. But he was an accessory to the crime. If someone tells you they're going to kill someone, and they've had a strong history of violence towards others in the past, and you do nothing, and they kill someone, you should absolutely be held accountable for doing nothing.

My .02$


Tex
KD5HQD

[Mike Tx]

Originally posted by Zamboni:
Heres a bigger problem with going after Rusty. Andrea's defense was she was insane but the courts rejected it. But if you go after Rusty by saying he knew his wife was insane and he shouldn't have endangered his kids aren't you opening up a whole can full of worms. Basically the prosecutors would have to admit that Andrea was insane even though they claimed in the trial she wasn't and that would give her lots of grounds for appeal.

I never thought of that. Very good point Zamboni. I'll bet there are some lawyers this very minute hoping that very thing happens.

[Mike Tx]

kd5hqd:

You can never be sure what someone will do, whether or not you are intimate with them. A case in point is the Andrea Yates murder trial. Do we really think he knew she was going to kill all five children? No way. He probably thought, "I don't know what's going on with Andrea, but hey, let's just get through one more day. The kids need her."

Never thinking what would happen.

[celia]

Well, I have mixed feeling here. On the one hand, the very conservative Christian viewpoint is that the husband is the head of the wife and therefore is responsible for her actions, etc. However, I know a certain mother (who shall remain nameless ) who did a lot of wacky things (like threw herself in the lake, and slammed on the brakes on the e-way at 65 miles an hour), and her dh didn't know about them. Said mother did a lot of other wacky things her dh did know about and at the time I (ahem, I mean "others") couldn't understand why he didn't stop her, but now that time has passed I (I mean "others") realize that there really wasn't a whole lot he could have done. Thankfully she's 90 yo now and much better behaved.

So, I have mixed feelings. I think Rusty may have contributed to her mental state, and for that I hold him accountable. I think he may not have known the full extent of her illness (he says he didn't know she had thought about killing, etc), and for that I can't very well hold him accountable - well maybe there were things he should have made it his business to know, so he'd be responsible for that. I really don't understand how he could bring her home knowing she was too ill to eat, and then leave her alone with those little children. He could have at least hired a companion to watch her. He should have demanded better health care or he should have said, "I don't care if the insurance is gone, keep her here and I'll pay it myself if it takes my last dime, but she's too ill to take home and leave alone with 5 kids." Whether he should be held LEGALLY responsible is another matter. I just don't know I guess. I really think her doctors, who absolutely knew how sick she was, should be prosecuted for not treating her when the insurance ran out. The one guy in particular who refused to listen to Rusty should be strung up. According to what I read, Rusty told him how bad she was and he ignored him.

And I agree it will be interesting to see how they prosecute him for leaving an insame person with his kids when the prosecutor just finished insisting that she wasn't insane.

[ 04-02-2002: Message edited by: ThaliaMoser ]

[kd5hqd]

Mike, no one can be sure what some one will do, absolutely. But with her mental condition that he knew of, and her previous attempts at suicide and violence because of her illness, it doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together and get her help.


Tex
KD5HQD