Cops: Man Admits Killing Child Molesters

[jefnvk]

OK, no jury of peers.

Had they done something that the general public deems suitable for execution, that would have been an option for the jurors. Maybe it was, and they didn't find that to be a suitable punishment.

What bothers me most, is that people here are condoning simple murder. He was not an angry father, which although wrong, would certainly be understandable. He picked the names off a list, for the sake of killing them.

What if he decided to pick the names off the list of gun owners, or CCW holders? My guess is that the response here would be greatly different. DO remember, however, that there are people that would think that killing a gun owner would be acceptable. They are just gun owners, they don't really deserve to live if they believe in something so uncivilized as a gun.

And someone will be sure to bring up that gun owners have not done anything wrong. I will respond with many people don't see that that way. They know for a fact that someone with a gun is much more likely to kill someone than someone with a gun. So in their mind, they are just as justified in killing that gun owner as the guy thought he would be in killing the sex offenders.

 

[orionengnr]

ahh, did I misread the original post...

or were there THREE of these "poor, misunderstood (and, oh-by-the-way-convicted) victims of society" all living together? (two ended up dead, and the third discovered the other two). Just a coincidence, or... birds of a feather?

Amazing how many social problems can be solved with the proper application of high explosives...or high voltage.

Or do I just need to get in touch with my feminine side?

 

[MachIVshooter]

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

Exactly.

And as others said, the Registration lists, while not graphically detailed, do differentiate between such petty offenses as statutory or indecent exposure and pedophilia or violent rape.

Was this guy justified? We really don't have enough information. Might he have had a niece or something that was a victim of one or both offenders? He could very well be just a cold-blooded killer, but I doubt we'll ever really know.

 

[Fletchette]

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

Don't wanna get raped for being outside without your husband? Don't leave home. Can't live your life under a burka? Kill yourself.

The guy murdered two people. He should fry. The fact that those two people had been convicted and punished by our justice system, but this man felt compelled to murder them anyhow, shows that he has no respect for the law. If you feel that the two victims should have been punished more severely than they did by the law, then you should advocate changing the law, not praise the disregard of the law.

 

[jefnvk]

Might he have had a niece or something that was a victim of one or both offenders?

saying he picked the victims from a sheriff's Web site, police said.

I don't really think so.

 

[pax]

or were there THREE of these "poor, misunderstood (and, oh-by-the-way-convicted) victims of society" all living together? (two ended up dead, and the third discovered the other two). Just a coincidence, or... birds of a feather?

Fairly common, really.

They meet in jail or in treatment, need a roommate to make ends meet -- and who else is gonna live with one of those guys?

pax

Whatever you may think about the death penalty, it has the lowest recidivism rate of any of the ways of fighting crime. -- Thomas Sowell

 

[Zundfolge]

the Registration lists, while not graphically detailed, do differentiate between such petty offenses as statutory or indecent exposure and pedophilia or violent rape.

Maybe where you live they do, but like I said, back in Kansas those two guys are on the list and all it says is that they where convicted of "Aggravated indecent liberties with a child" (21-3504) ... in Kansas that same statute covers both heinous molestation of young children AND consensual sex with 15 year olds.

I wouldn't have much of a problem with the sex offender lists if they gave more details about their convictions.

For example "Subject was convicted of Aggravated Indecent Liberties with a Child (21-3504) for his 1999 consensual relationship with an unnamed 15year old"
or
"Subject was convicted of "Subject was convicted of Aggravated Indecent Liberties with a Child (21-3504) for forcing a 12 year old to touch his genitals while masterbating the victim in 1997"

Big difference there.


BTW, here's the Kansas Statute in question:

21-3504
Chapter 21.--CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
PART II.--PROHIBITED CONDUCT
Article 35.--SEX OFFENSES

21-3504. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child. (a) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child is:

(1) Sexual intercourse with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age;

(2) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is 14 or more years of age but less than 16 years of age and who does not consent thereto:

(A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or

(B) causing the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another; or

(3) engaging in any of the following acts with a child who is under 14 years of age:

(A) Any lewd fondling or touching of the person of either the child or the offender, done or submitted to with the intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the offender, or both; or

(B) soliciting the child to engage in any lewd fondling or touching of the person of another with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of the child, the offender or another.

(b) It shall be a defense to a prosecution of aggravated indecent liberties with a child as provided in subsection (a)(1), (a)(2)(A) and (a)(3)(A) that the child was married to the accused at the time of the offense.

(c) Aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) is a severity level 3, person felony. Aggravated indecent liberties with a child as described in subsection (a)(2) is a severity level 4, person felony.

History: L. 1969, ch. 180, § 21-3504; L. 1975, ch. 193, § 2; L. 1983, ch. 109, § 4; L. 1984, ch. 112, § 3; L. 1984, ch. 118, §2; L. 1992, ch. 298, § 22; L. 1993, ch. 253, § 5; L. 1993, ch. 291, § 271; July 1.

 

[Gray Peterson]

]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.

Again, not neccesarily.

And as others said, the Registration lists, while not graphically detailed, do differentiate between such petty offenses as statutory or indecent exposure and pedophilia or violent rape.

They do not, in the state of Washington, differentiate.

Class 3 SO's can also be a situation where a 14 year old does sexual things with a 13 year old in the state of Washington. You can make the arguments saying that they shouldn't do that, but as a result of said actions, they're labeled felons for the rest of their lives as a result. I know, because I'm friends with someone who got slapped with that.

A 14 year old murders 5 people in Jonesboro, Arkansas, and he gets off scot free at the age of 21 with full rights. Same 14 year old does sexual stuff with a 13 year old, no rape involved, and they get slapped to the point that they're ruined for life.

Is that fair?

The other problem is, whenever someone calls the government on it's treatment of said situation above, they get called "supporters of kiddie rape", etc etc etc, which is nothing more than a straw man argument to attack the character of those who criticize this treatment.

Mullen should fry. He knew that these people would most likely be defenseless, and attacked anyway.

 

[silverbird]

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.

These two guys were living together. Why would two registered level 3 sex-offenders find each other and live together? I know that that isn't good for their "rehabilitation". People of like-minds feed off of one another, and take actions to the next level. Maybe this guy could sense something brewing, but in translation to the police/media, it gets turned into "crazy man talk".


Personally, I think he chose good targets, and the world won't miss either one of them one bit. Granted, if he hadn't been caught, who knows how far he would have taken it. Could have ended right there, or he could have taken out every person on that list.

 

[jefnvk]

Personally, I think he chose good targets, and the world won't miss either one of them one bit. Granted, if he hadn't been caught, who knows how far he would have taken it. Could have ended right there, or he could have taken out every person on that list.

Would I be a hero if I started killing all drug users? What about everyone who has ever conned someone? What if I started killing CCW holders, because I thought the world would be a better place without them?

I wonder what the response here would have been if some government agency had done this?

 

[Fletchette]

Class 3 SO's can also be a situation where a 14 year old does sexual things with a 13 year old in the state of Washington. You can make the arguments saying that they shouldn't do that, but as a result of said actions, they're labeled felons for the rest of their lives as a result. I know, because I'm friends with someone who got slapped with that.

Well it looks like your friend will have to look over his/her shoulder now, wondering if some lunatic will come to murder him/her. It seems that many of the people here would actually condone such a murder.

Where are the law-and-order types when you need them?

 

[Ryder]

Hero? I think it's just as likely this guy was a child molester himself and he killed these guys in an attempt to clear his conscience.

 

[Taurus 66]

Vigilantes:Rapists = 2:1

A vicious circle is in play. Rapist is set free; vigilante kills rapist; vigilante goes to prison; vigilante gets raped.

 

[c_yeager]

They do not, in the state of Washington, differentiate.

They really do.

Here is the king county registry.

http://www.metrokc.gov/sheriff/services/sex_offender_search/

You can enter a zip code or a name, and the results are clasified based on "level" (likeliness to reoffend) and their specific charges are listed.

If anyone wants to play with it here is the range of zip codes for Seattle. http://seattle.areaconnect.com/zip2.htm?city=Seattle&qs=WA&searchtype=bycity

Charges in Washington state are fairly straight foreward. For my old zip code in North Seattle the charges among level three offenders are such unambigous items like "Rape of a Child, first degree" and "Child Molestation, first degree" as well as one or two charges of "Statutory Rape". As you can see, they are clearly seperated.

You can no longer access this information via the Whatcom County website as a direct result of this case (prior to this you could). Previously, it was similar to the King County site. As you can see, the case is already having some fallout.

With all of that said, i am against these lists on the basic premis that they circumvent due-process. None of these guys were sentanced to have thier names placed on a state mantained and publicly accessable list, and as such, that is a punishment that the state CANNOT hand down. Place the registration within the statute that they violated, make the jury aware of this, and your fine. Without that, there is no check on the government's authority to place anyone they want on the list.

 

[Gray Peterson]

Well again, because of the ages of the two kids involved, it was considered "Rape of a Child in the First Degree", even though it wasn't "Rape" in the same sense as most understand it.

These two guys were living together. Why would two registered level 3 sex-offenders find each other and live together? I know that that isn't good for their "rehabilitation". People of like-minds feed off of one another, and take actions to the next level. Maybe this guy could sense something brewing, but in translation to the police/media, it gets turned into "crazy man talk".

Assignment of motive to this person is not appropriate. "Sensing something brewing" is not enough of a reason to pretend to be a law enforcement officer, and then execute two people.

As for "they shouldn't live together", well, where else are they going to live? Most apartment complexes will not rent to anyone with a felony record, most especially a "sex offense". That leaves private owner renters. Who knows, perhaps one of the victims was the owner of the house? As a home owner, he has every right to house whomever he wants. Or are we going to demand laws banning two of them living together. Yes, let's make them more likely to be homeless and destitute, living in a box somewhere, in the streets of Seattle, where kids constantly walk by ALL THE TIME. Great idea!

Again, assignment of motives here is not appropriate. Again, ALL Class A sex offenses (including named above rape of a child, with the 14 and 13 year olds that I named above) are considered "Level 3" at first. That doesn't mean that said 14 year old is going to do it again. He took the names off of the list and executed them, no trial, no jury, just murdered them.

I would take glee if the these two folks who were murdered were actually in the process of kidnapping someone and then Mullen stepped in and shot and killed both of them. That's self defense and defense of your family or a third party. Completely different circumstance, and I'd applaud him in a heartbeat.

Mullen should be executed as an example of what you do when you decide to be judge, jury, and executioner. There is nothing you can say to rationalize and justify the fact that he's first degree multiple murderer. He should be sent to the gas chamber.

 

[Gray Peterson]

With all of that said, i am against these lists on the basic premis that they circumvent due-process. None of these guys were sentanced to have thier names placed on a state mantained and publicly accessable list, and as such, that is a punishment that the state CANNOT hand down. Place the registration within the statute that they violated, make the jury aware of this, and your fine. Without that, there is no check on the government's authority to place anyone they want on the list.

Agreed, just like the Domestic Violence Conviction Gun ban, which can include shouting at your spouse in certain states, was retroactively taking away a persons right to own a firearm under federal law. Bravo.

 

[beerslurpy]

If "sex offender" lists really work and are a good thing, why dont we have burglar offender lists, car thief lists, murderer registry lists etc? Honestly I feel more worried about car thieves and burglars than I do about the rare pedophile rapist. I grew up in NYC (probably second city behind the neverland ranch in terms of danger to kids) and I think it is pretty hard for these things to transpire if you keep a close watch on your kids.

This whole scarlet letter thing was stamped out centuries ago for a reason. When you brand someone evil and make them a paraiah, what contribution they make to society will not likely be a good one.

I am all for killing child rapists, but what percentage of the people on the average sex offender list actually did anything remotely resembling that? I ordinarily consider myself something of a pro-vigilante person, but something about picking people off a website and whacking them seems wrong. I guess I see there being a difference between killing someone to prevent a rape and killing someone that committed some sort of sex crime in the past and was punished for it already (perhaps not a good enough punishment, but that is what we have legislatures for).

 

[c_yeager]

If "sex offender" lists really work and are a good thing, why dont we have burglar offender lists, car thief lists, murderer registry lists etc?

Dont you get it?

Its FOR THE CHILDREN.

Its the rallying cry of everyone that wants to take away your rights. If it saves JUST ONE CHILD its worth any sacrifice.

 

[SteveS]

Its the rallying cry of everyone that wants to take away your rights. If it saves JUST ONE CHILD its worth any sacrifice.

What right does the sex-offender list violate? I agree that there are problems with the lists, though.

 

[Fletchette]

What right does the sex-offender list violate?

How about the Fourht Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The list certainly did not make them secure in there persons and homes.

I ordinarily consider myself something of a pro-vigilante person, but something about picking people off a website and whacking them seems wrong. I guess I see there being a difference between killing someone to prevent a rape and killing someone that committed some sort of sex crime in the past and was punished for it already

There are several nuances to consider. First, killing someone to prevent rape is self-defense and not "vigilanteism", despite what our highly educated press may say. Second, I too consider myself generally "pro-vigilante" when compared to the hapless lot of our society, but only under the right (moral) circumstances. This is where things get murky.

In a properly run Republic, an objective third party (the state) runs the justice system and applies punishment to those convicted of crimes. It is essential to have a third party do the punishing because if a victim does it it is likely to be perceived as revenge. Family feuds are sure to follow.

However, when the government is corrupt, inept or both and does not perform its duty, otherwise law-abiding citizens are compelled to enforce the law themselves as no one else is. This circumstance is the last stage before anarchy. It is less a matter of people "taking the law into their own hands" and more a matter of "the government dropping the law into the citizens' lap". It is this type of "vigilanteism" that I generally consider myself to support, i.e. a good citizen will participate in society, even if it necessitates putting him/herself in personal risk, rather than stand by and watch criminals and do nothing.

A classic example of "just vigilanteism" is the capture, trial and execution of a corrupt Californian mayor (whose name I forget) that had a reporter killed. The mayor was so corrupt and powerful that there was no police investigation into the reporter's murder. Vigilantes had to clean out the entire local government. Like I said, this is the last stage before anarchy.

Another classic example of just vigilanteism are the original Minutemen. They clearly violated the law of a sovereign government and started a rebellion. However, they were right.

I should note that I support the contemporary Minutemen as well, but they are not technically vigilantes as they are not breaking any laws.

 

[c_yeager]

What right does the sex-offender list violate?

The fourth amendment has been mentioned. It is also a violation of ones right to due process. When a jury convicts an offender, they do so with the punishment for the crimes in mind. By adding a level of punishment beyond that stipulated by the crime that they were convicted of the offenders are in effect being sentanced without a trial.

The registry amounts to a sort of high-tech version of the "stocks" of old (the things made of wood with the arm and leg holes, imagine folks throwing fruit at lowlifes). Now, I am not against this as a form of punishment. In fact, i think its a great idea. The only problem is that it ISNT part of our penal code and it isnt listed as a punishment for any crime. Fix that, and there isnt a problem.

In a nutshell the problem is that being placed on the list is a completely arbitrary decision made by the state. That is a power that the state DOES NOT HAVE. And allowing them to continue is opening the door for further perversions of the justice system (such as it is).

 

[SteveS]

The fourth amendment has been mentioned. It is also a violation of ones right to due process. When a jury convicts an offender, they do so with the punishment for the crimes in mind. By adding a level of punishment beyond that stipulated by the crime that they were convicted of the offenders are in effect being sentanced without a trial.

In regards to the 4th amendment, it would depend on the reasonableness of having you name placed on the list. I don't see it as a due process violation. Many paroled felons have restrictions when they are released. I think it is fair to ask if these lists are doing what they are supposed to be doing? As a parent, I would like to know if there are any offenders in my area. I wouldn't hunt them down and kill them.

I think that the lists should only include rapists and child-molesters. Peeping toms, 18 year olds that have sex with 17 year olds, and people that urinate in public don't need to be on these lists. There also needs to be some way for someone to get off the list, under certain circumstances.

 

[PCGS65]

He can't plead insanity because what he did was very sain. Just to make it look good they should try him then come up with some kind of technicality like they do for politicians and once in a while police officers then dismiss the charges.

 

[c_yeager]

Many paroled felons have restrictions when they are released.

Parole is an EARLY RELEASE, and you are still a convict (i.e. serving your sentance) untill your parole is complete. These guys have completed their the full terms and conditions of their release and are no longer serving a sentance.

 

[logjon]

***

Are people actually suggesting that there shouldn't be a sex offender list that people shouldn't have to register with. SCREW THAT. In Illinois it differentiates between simple statch and "Aggravated sexual assault." It even specifies age to an extant. Victim <13 or Victim 13-17. There's even a "Sexual Predator" label for the really bad people. Human rights have a limit, and that limit is reached when you FORCE sex on a little kid. They should get capital punsihment, I would pay to throw the switch. Or take away the laws protecting them in prison. Throw them in with the GP and let them get raped to death with a broomstick. If their rights have to be infringed so that MY kids can be safe and not get raped, then so be it. Do people really think that baby rapists should be allowed to go free, just because their probation is over, slip back into society, nobody knows what they are? They're scumbags. I'm very close with someone who was raped 12 years ago as a 6 year old child. That STAYS with the victim. It never goes away. They're never the same. The life is destroyed. These people do not deserve to be allowed back into society. And by the way a jury of peers would be impossible. You can't get liquified horse feces to serve on a jury. And other than other baby rapists, the horse feces is the only equal. Wait, that's too mean for the feces. It never forced sex on a child. It never destroyed a life. Yet if you presented horse feces to anybody involved in this conversation, you would get a disgusted response. If you presented a child molester who had finished probation to the same people, some people would complain about the label you gave him and say his rights were being infringed. THEY RAPE CHILDREN. What is wrong with you people? They should have it branded into their forehead. They are dangerous to children. The list isn't punishment, it's precaution. It helps ensure more children don't get molested. Oh, and jefnvk, beautiful comparison. I was a drug user for many years. I'm clean now, in college, making good grades, and a contributing member to society. I've never raped a child, or anyone for that matter. I've never destroyed lives, stolen innocence. The only person I hurt was myself. THERE'S NO PARALLEL. Anybody who sticks up for the rights of a child molester is a disgusting human being. Oh and btw, I'm all for the killing of rapists as well as child molesters. I can't even believe the audacity of some people. What if it was your kid who got raped? Think for a minute. You want that child molester back on the street living in anonymity? Or are you just looking for a cause to cry "foul?" It makes me sick that anyone can stand up for the rights of a child rapist for any reason. The minute you force sex on a child you forfeit all rights as a human being.