Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

I think this is wrong, I don't think they have a right to sue. They were told the rules before they had their little event, which I don't think they should have gotten in the first place. They just didn't like that the rules were enforced, and now they are mad. They shouldn't get the luxuries that we do because they are serving time for their crimes.

I don't think they have the right to sue the state. first of all, they were well aware of the rules before this event took place. It's also a health and safety issue with food being taken back to the living quarters. They are just mad they can't enjoy more of the luxury food they were given. Even though they are paying for the choices they made. So, they shouldn't have the right to sue.

I think they can cry about it. They didn't deserve anything in the first place. :D

I don't think they have the right to sue the state, I might have read this wrong but I didn't see anything about the state doing something that would offend them.

I don't think they can win this because it's not infringing any rights.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state they shouldn't be. It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

Definitely an interesting headline. The claimants (being unjudgemental) feel that they had a religious act violated by the Government. It's a complicated manner because in a way the government did technically interfere with their religious freedoms because the Iowa Department of Human Services put the rule in place that inmates can´t take food into rooms for health reasons centrally not intending to block their freedom but instead concerned about safety and health. I think that even though in a way the claimants do have a point that their creepy and gross religious feast was blocked by the government I also think the rules that were put in place to protect everyone in the prison. Old food can cause sickness, rancid smells, and pests so it Could interfere with other inmates that had nothing to do with the group and therefore I think that the Iowa Department of Human Services is in the right and should win the case.

They shouldn't be able to sue the state because of Timer and Manner restrictions and they do put other people at some sort of state, they shouldn't be able to do that!! It's morally wrong and that can play a role in their case.

i think if they got their way with this then it causes problems with other prisoners trying the same thing.

I agree with Kayla. Admitting to the murder does not change the fact that the little girl is dead.. So what, if I get mad at my baby sister, throw her down the stairs, and she dies, as long as its my first murder and I admit to it I wont get in that much trouble? Ridiculous.

This is quite possibly the stupidest thing I've ever read. Why did he get so little punishment for killing someone? No matter how old the victim is, or how unlikely the person is to commit this crime again, doesn't make the crime any less bad than it was. This man should have gotten much worse. The fact that he got away with this, with only a few punishments, sickens me.

90 days isn't a long enough punishment for killing a baby, even if it was an accident.

He should be sentenced for longer or even for life. If I went out and killed someone they wouldn't let me free just because "I was scared to tell someone so I lied" and "It was an accident" Just because he admitted to murdering her that doesn't mean they should take away from the punishment.

I agree with everyone. If you kill someone, no matter what your age is you should be punished for a lot longer than 90 days.

Admitting to his faults shouldn't of shortened his sentence. He had killed his kid, 90 days in prison is nothing to what he should have really gotten.

19 or not, he should have much more than 90 days. They are basically saying, that even if a 35 year old man killed his child, that its ok because the guy does not have a criminal background.... That is not how things should be.

I am in shock! He killed his daughter and got 90 days! I know people that did little crimes compared to that and got 15 years in prison! I cannot believe it. Who ever was the judge is literally crazy! They need to go back and put him on trial again, and sentence him for life!

He should be put in jail no matter what his criminal record is. He murdered someone and when he said he forcefully put her to bed then obviously he was intending to hurt her. That doesn't exactly sound like an accident.

this is so unreal how stupied it is 90 days really!!! i could go kill someone and get life right now it dosent matter how old u are if you kill someone u should get the full punishment the law will leet u get

90 days is hardly a sentence, just because they think he isn't going to do it again doesn't mean he should get any less then an average person would get.

You kill a child you should be sent away for a long time. Do the crime do the time.

who would kill a innocent child ,like really that messed up!!!

WOW when and/or if someone were to kill an infant they should get more than 90 days. I completely disagree with this sentencing.

He should get longer than 90 days. Who kills a child

This is a cruel world ,why in the world do people have to kill others especially little ones?!

He deserves what he is getting. I think he new what he was doing the whole time. That school should feel horrible for not having good enough security to let him bring in a gun.

what is wrong with this kid. he is crazy!! now the school should know they need more security so this wont happen again.

Wow, This is shocking. Oddly enough all I could think about the whole time was how do attorneys do their jobs? How in the world could you be strong enough to defend something like that. That young man is sick.

That is terrible! At least he got what he deserved. I don't understand how anybody in their right mind could do such things.

That kid is sick and twist. He doesn't deserve 3 life sentences he deserves the death penatly

I don't understand why nobody saw that there was something wrong with this person he isn't exactly sane it seem I mean to go and kill people for one, then to go to court and act like he did why didn't anyone try and stop him.

I don't think the death penalty is acceptable. We are killing people that kill people to show people that killing people is wrong... It just doesn't make sense.

She murdered more people than Jeffrey Dahmer and in a shorter time period too. Wow.

I'm not too sure how credible the story is. But, if it is true how had they not have noticed any type of connection between victims? Say, area of killing, type of person they are, etc.

At least she admits it. I think stories like this, are influenced by movies!

The murderers are really young to have done something like that!

She said she killed in Alaska and Florida, causing the police to investigate in both states. Which are probably the furthest states away. It would take a while for the police to investigate the cases. I think that she is trying to gain attention and possibly delay her trial.

This is crazy! Who could do something like that?

so she must have put a lot of thought into the murders so she could spare her self more time with the states working together

I think that this is crazy! How can she just sit there and say her and her husband had this planned since they met... Kinda stupid and maybe even a little psycho.

that's crazy! its a good thing they caught her. who knows how many more people she would have killed if she was still out there.

She said that the police wont find full bodies, only body parts.. from a wide range of ages starting at 13! The couple have had plans to kill together, but the victims never showed up. Barbour said she knew they were going to kill someone together since the day they met! How can someone even have the slightest thought of something like this!!

She's heading to prison as a young girl. She wants to be labeled as crazy as possible.

Women are crazy.

At least she admits it.

I seriously don't think she was able to kill just over twenty men since she was thirteen without one getting away or fighting her back. She'd have to take the men by surprise and even then, I don't think a thirteen year old would have successfully committed a murder and got away with it. I think she is just trying to prolong her trial and send the police on a search for the bodies or parts of these individuals she killed. Regardless, one life is time is prison twenty is a couple lifetimes.

To me, the boys definitely should have to face the consequences of their actions, for taking advantage of a girl the way they did, but she had every intention to go to that party to drink. How do you not expect to be taken advantage of at a party when you're a drunk teenage girl? Going to the party in the first place was irresponsible and not safe on her part, because anyone will take advantage of a girl too drunk to say no. Her "friend" should have made sure she did not go to the house with those two boys anyway.

The guys who did that should be charged, maybe 90 + but the girls "victim" should also be charged for drinking under age. The person who gave her the vodka should be charged for distributing to minors

Those two guys should have to serve time in prison, rape is a serious crime. They were super cruel!!!

To me it seems like she is saying she was raped to help her image. She might not of wanted to do what she did when she was sober, but since she was drunk her mindset could have changed completely

I think all three of them should be punished. They were all drinking way too much and did it to themselves. Although I do think the boys should be in more trouble than the girl because rape is worse than drinking.

I feel that this case is a good reminder that there are "natural consequences" for our behavior. These are separate from the legal consequences that so many people argue over. I think that anyone should expect bad things to happen when they put themselves in these situations, but that doesn't mean they "deserve it". In my eyes the legal consequences are clear; anytime you have sex with a person who doesn't know what's happening, you are committing rape. Period.

It was her fault that she was drinking, and if it was a "rape" at a party. Someone would have heard or saw i think she just did something she regretted and now shes saying that she got raped.

I think that it was partially her fault for putting herself in that situation, but if she shared a bottle of vodka and was that so drunk, than how does she actually know if she was raped? Plus she showed up at other parties with these boys when they all knew what would happen at each party when they drank. This is why there is an age limit to drinking, and minors should not drink.

They were charged as guilty for the rape: http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/03/17/steubenville_rape_case_teen_football_players_guilty.html

Multiple people should be charged for different crimes

They should be punished. But the girl should also receive a punishment for she was drinking underage and she should have been conscious of how much she drank. None of them should really be considered "victims" in my opinion

well my opinion is that the boy shouldnt be the only charged with a crime. Multiple people should be charged for different crimes.

Okay, here's my perspective on this. The girl obviously decided to party with them at multiple parties with them multiple times. if she chose to drink that much alcohol and get drunk to where she didn't know what was going on, then that's her own fault. But they boys also should not have taken advantage of the girl. But her choice had bad consequences.

Slapping a child is never okay, and being intoxicated is not an excuse for it either. This man deserves more then just hate mail.

I wouldn't be surprised if he got more than just hate mail, Just because your intoxicated gives you no reason to slap a baby. That baby didn't deserve that.

That guy is crazy, he slapped a little kid in front of a bunch of people, and called it the N-word. He's lucky he's just getting hate mail and nothing more.

just because a baby is crying it does not give anyone the right to slap a baby

I think that this story is a great reminder that our behavior has consequences. He has already been fired from an executive position in his company and has been publicly ridiculed. This in in addition to any sort of legal punishment that he might be facing. His decision to have maybe just one more drink before he boarded the plane was a bad decision with far reaching consequences!

Of course he is being sent hate mail he slapped a baby. What kind of person does that?

If what he is being accused for actually happened he deserves time in prison because for one racism is a terrible thing people don't get to choose what raise they are going to be they are born into it. For two no one in their right mind should every hit a child.

i agree with all your comments it isn't right to slap a child becuase it's crying and it's not ok to use racial terms to anyone it's not cool.

it all depends on the terms of which he did or did not some might say he did in fact slap the baby while others would say he didn't because of the accusation that he did in fact hit the baby but what it all comes down to is that no matter what you still have no right to hit a kid under any circumstances no matter what so he might deserve hate mail or he might not but not racist comments seriously what the f#^5 don't be racist

Obama is claiming he can't and wont pardon Edward Snowden, also known as the most famous whistleblower in our governments history, solely because he hasn't stood before a court. The president CAN pardon him, but decides not to. Snowden would appear before a court if he knew it'd be a fair trial, but he knows that wont happen. He knows how tyrannous the government is and wont even attempt to have a fair trial.

I agree with Deven because as soon as Snowden steps foot on United States soil he's getting thrown into federal prison and then going to go on trial and not win because it wouldn't be a fair trial

Deven is correct on this one. The thing I find interesting is that Obama said that if Trump pardons Snowden then he will pardon Clinton, the problem with that is Clinton wasn't convicted of anything.

Zayne brought up the Clinton situation, I agree with that because you can't pardon somebody who wasn't convicted of anything, so how would he pardon him?

Snowden shouldn't be pardoned because what he did was against the government policy, even though he was trying to tell america what our government was doing he still violated the law.

In this article, one paragraph says that Obama pardoned three Iranian Americans before they stood trial. So in a way I think Obama is just using his opinion and not giving Snowden a chance. It's truly unfair that if he steps on US soil he will be thrown in jail, when really he just wants a chance to explain himself

I agree with the president on forgiving him because we deserve to know this information.

I think Obama could have pardoned him but is choosing not to. The fact that he's saying that he's not able to is ridiculous. Though what he did was considered against the law, sometimes we need people to go against in order to uncover hidden truths.

On the idea of pardoning Snowden, I agree with Nate because although the information he had should have been told to the public, just in a different way, he broke major laws, so there must be consequences. And going off of Devin's idea of no fair trial is inevitable.