Cops: Man Admits Killing Child Molesters

[rick_reno]

Fallout from this may result in the web sites being removed, then we'll never know if our neighbor is a violent sex offender.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168564,00.html

Cops: Man Admits Killing Child Molesters
Tuesday, September 06, 2005

BELLINGHAM, Wash. — A man turned himself in to authorities in the killing of two convicted child rapists, saying he picked the victims from a sheriff's Web site, police said.

Michael Anthony Mullen (search), 36, called 911 on Monday to claim responsibility for the killings, and officers who talked to him said he gave information that only the killer would know, according to a police news release. He was jailed for investigation of two counts of first-degree murder.

Hank Eisses (search), 49, and Victor Vasquez (search), 68, were found shot to death at their apartment Aug. 27. They were both classified as Level III sex offenders, considered the type most likely to reoffend. Sex offenders in Washington are required to register with local authorities, and the information is provided on the Web.

Mullen told authorities he targeted at least one of the two men after checking the county sheriff's Web site July 13, according to the police statement.

The bodies of Eisses and Vasquez were found by a roommate, also a sex offender. He said a man wearing a blue jumpsuit and a cap that said FBI on it came to their home, told them he was an FBI agent and said one of them was on a "hit list" on an Internet site, police said.

The roommate said he left while the "FBI" visitor was still there and found the bodies when he returned about four hours later.

Days after the killings, The Bellingham Herald received an unsigned letter claiming responsibility for the killings. Police notified convicted Level 3 sex offenders in the area as a precaution, but said the letter was vague and could be a hoax.

 

[jefnvk]

Part of the reason why I don't particularly like the registries. If they needed to die, they should have been sentenced to die, and never released.

 

[iiibdsiil]

It sucks that this man is going to go to jail over this. If these people were dealt with properly the first time, he never would have had to.

 

[Dionysusigma]

*sigh* Not sure what to think.

He's a serial killer by definition, but honorable in that his "victims" were of one of the most horrible kinds of people.

I don't know.



P.S. Why are serial killers referred to with their middle name, too?

 

[CAnnoneer]

It's not a bad score.

Vigilantes:Rapists = 2:1

 

[jnojr]

Part of the reason why I don't particularly like the registries. If they needed to die, they should have been sentenced to die, and never released.

Fallacious logic. That's the same as saying "Because they weren't sentenced to death or life, they didn't deserve it". Horsecrap. All child molesters should be killed or at the very least locked away forever with no chance of release. Just because some dimwit liberal judge decides that this child molester is really a sweet, misunderstood guy with a broken childhood and that nothing is his fault shouldn't mean that that proven predator gets more chances to molest kids.

Megan's Law is just that... a law. Nobody can just "shut down" the registries because of the chance that the molesters listed in it might get killed. It would take another law to do that. And i don't think most people are going to care too much if a few molesters get knocked off here and there, at least not enough to get rid of the only way they have of knowing there are violent, dangerous predators lurking in their neighborhoods.

Don't wanna get murdered for being on the list? Don't molest kids. Can't resist the urge? Kill yourself.

 

[seeker_two]

I was going to add this story to the Vigilante thread, but y'all beat me to it....

So.....why was this guy arrested?.....

 

[Car Knocker]

jnojr,

Child molesters aren't the only ones on those registries.

I seem to recall reading a news article about a guy here in Utah that got convicted of taking a leak off a balcony during a party up in Park City and was put on the sex offender list.

Does he need to die?

The kid across the street is on the list for having sex with his younger girlfriend. They now are married and have a child.

Does he need to die?

The point I'm making is that these lists have people on them for some pretty dubious reasons. Open season on someone for "indiscrete" urination seems a bit extreme.

 

[Zundfolge]

So.....why was this guy arrested?.....

Because murder is illegal (even when its not wrong).


This has been one of my complaints about sex offender databases as well ... I don't mind if they list the serious ones, but I know two men in the state of Kansas who are registered sex offenders ... the crime they where convicted of was "Aggravated indecent liberties with a child" and in both cases they had consensual sexual relations with 15yr old girls. No I don't condone their actions, but they are hardly child raping predators (one didn't know the girl was under age, the other had a long term relationship with a girl who was 15 when it began and 19 when it ended).

Problem is the same statute covers other despicable acts like forcing a 10 year old to put their hand down your pants and other real nasty stuff.

So when the vigilantes come a callin' are they offing real honest-to-God predators? Or just guys who dated underage girls. Oh, and lest you say these two are just as bad as child rapists, several years ago I used to hang out at this bar and one of the bartenders was interested in dating me ... I was interested in her until I found out she was actually only 15 but had got the job with a fake ID. Had I gone through with it I could easily be a "sex offender".

I guess I'd just rather see sex offender databases go away, and we keep honest to God predators locked up either forever or until they are gassed.

 

[jefnvk]

I guess I'd just rather see sex offender databases go away, and we keep honest to God predators locked up either forever or until they are gassed.

Same here.

Last I checked, in America anyways, you punishment was handed down by a jury of peers.

I'd be a bit less disturbed and more understanding if this man was the father of one of the children, but the simple fact that he just looked up the name off a list and went out and killed them does not make this right at all.

 

[Car Knocker]

Last I checked, in America anyways, you punishment was handed down by a jury of peers.

I know it's picky but in most cases that's not true. The judge determines the punishment. The jury only convicts. The only exception I can think of is death penalty cases but there may be some others.

 

[crewsr]

I guess I feel the same way when I heard

Jeffery Dommer got "shanked" ........Justice was finally served. I have yet to find a believer in Rehabilitation of these animals that is willing to let them live next door to their 10-16 year old daughter after successful rehab!!! Yes I have asked my Criminal Justice professors....and I get this look

 

[Gray Peterson]

Last I checked, murder is still illegal, and there's no way a self defense claim can be attached here. even under Washington's very "liberal" self defense laws.

Mullen I think should be executed. This was a pre-planned, cold, calculated killing, and his targets were the least likely to own guns due to the felonious nature of such.

Just because you think someone may re-offend, and is statistically more likely to re-offend, doesn't mean you have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner for crimes that they haven't even committed yet. To have such thinking would make Mullen no different than the kitten stomping JBT's who go into houses with wanting to score a "kill" due to a false report of an unregistered machine gun, because they think they're going to kill someone in the future with it.

Note that I'd be one of the first to congratulate Mullen if it were a different circumstance, such as these two offenders breaking into his house to rape his son or daughter, for a job well done.

 

[Fletchette]

So when the vigilantes come a callin' are they offing real honest-to-God predators? Or just guys who dated underage girls. Oh, and lest you say these two are just as bad as child rapists, several years ago I used to hang out at this bar and one of the bartenders was interested in dating me ... I was interested in her until I found out she was actually only 15 but had got the job with a fake ID. Had I gone through with it I could easily be a "sex offender".

Exactly. I find it hypocritical of all the "hang em high" vigilante wannabees that say that consensual dating a 15 year old teenager is raping a "child" out of one side of their mouth, and in the same breath these same people want to charge 15 year old murders as "adults".

If the crime was so heinous that the perpatrator should die, then a jury of his/her peers should make that decision in a court of law through due process. To argue otherwise is equivalent to the anarchy we just witnessed in New Orleans.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Just because you think someone may re-offend, and is statistically more likely to re-offend, doesn't mean you have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner for crimes that they haven't even committed yet.

I concur. That said™, publicly accessible registries of sex offenders are of greater benefit to the vast majority of citizens than harm to a relatively small number of convicted felons.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Exactly. I find it hypocritical of all the "hang em high" vigilante wannabees that say that consensual dating a 15 year old teenager is raping a "child" out of one side of their mouth, and in the same breath these same people want to charge 15 year old murders as "adults".

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[scout26]

Find him guilty, have the baliff slap both of his wrists while the judge wags his finger at him and tells him to never, ever, ever do it again.

 

[Cosmoline]

You don't get to Level III status for stat rape or taking a wiz in public. These were bad, bad people. Did they deserve to get sentenced to death? I don't know. Did they need to die? Yes. Those are two completely different questions. What the state does or does not do through the judicial process has no bearing on the broader issue of whether a man needs a good killing.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

The other question is, what motivated this guy to do this? I think this guy is dangerous. Here's why. It's not that these two people molested his children. He just found them on a website and decided to kill them. It was pre-meditated. Why did he do it? Did he want to kill for the thrill of killing? Did he want to be a hero (famous)? Or perhaps he himself was molested as a child and wanted some form of revenge?

If he was killing for a thrill, then he himself is dangerous to everyone. Who else might he kill?

 

[EVIL5LITER]

The only problem I see here is that the guy confessed before finishing his work.

 

[1 old 0311]

If anyone sets up a defense fund let us know. Sorry I can't be on the jury

Kevin

 

[R.H. Lee]

The headline should read "Predators Become Prey"

 

[TallPine]

Well, when he gets out of jail I hope that he moves up to my neighborhood... there's a few problems around here that he could take care of....

 

[c_yeager]

publicly accessible registries of sex offenders are of greater benefit to the vast majority of citizens than harm to a relatively small number of convicted felons.

I agree.

For the record, these guys were NOT convicted of having 16 year old girlfriends at the age of 18. These guys were actual predators that were likely to continue their behavior. Granted, this fellows actions place him right into the same category.

In the end its a case of one psycho killing other psychos, which when you think about it means that the whole planet comes out ahead

 

[scout26]

P.S. Why are serial killers referred to with their middle name, too?

So that Michael Andrew Mullen's Mom doesn't have the big grabber and his boss fires him in error.


Also sounds like he missed one, but then maybe roomie number three was one of those "my girlfriend was only 15 when I was 16" type of RSO's......



And Finally My Pet Peeve(tm)

Last I checked, in America anyways, you punishment was handed down by a jury of peers.

Nope, no Jury of Peers here in the good ol' US of A. The US Constitituion (on sale now at overstock.com for only $13.45 ) only guarantees a trial by a Jury (Art 3, Section 2, 3rd Clause). A Jury of Peers is from British Law, that was so that the Dukes and Barons and Earls would not/could not be tried by and face judgement from the peasants/commoners/unwashed rabble. That's also why they have a House of Lords and a House of Common(er)s, and we have a House of Representatives and a Senate (altough some Senators think that they are Peers of the Realm. )