|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 30, 2013 4:10:22 GMT -8
SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. (AP) — A decade after a raging fire swept through Southern California's San Bernardino foothills, an arsonist was sentenced to death for causing the deaths of five men who died of heart attacks. It was an unusual legal interpretation of murder likely to be debated in appellate courts. A lawyer for Rickie Lee Fowler, 31, suggested in arguments Monday that he could not have foreseen that anyone would die and said there was lingering doubt about whether he threw a road flare that was believed to have started the blaze. A second man was seen with him that night. Superior Court Judge Michael Smith imposed the punishment recommended by a jury in spite of the fact that the victims did not die by Fowler's hand. They died of heart attacks allegedly brought on by the stress of evacuating their homes as flames raged. Smith had the option of reducing Fowler's sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. He declined. "Today, after nearly ten years, justice has now been secured for the victims and their families, and those whose lives were affected by the actions of Rickie Lee Fowler," said District Attorney Michael Ramos. Fowler was convicted in August of five counts of first-degree murder and two counts of arson. Prosecutors said Fowler lit the fire in 2003 out of rage after he was thrown out of a house where his family was staying. The blaze scorched more than 142 square miles in October 2003 and destroyed 1,000 buildings as it burned for nine days in the foothills above San Bernardino. The men died after their homes burned or as they tried to evacuate. Fowler became a suspect after witnesses reported seeing a passenger in a white van tossing burning objects into dry brush. Investigators interviewed Fowler several months after the fire but didn't have enough evidence to file charges until six years later. Some legal experts previously said the jury's death recommendation for a crime tangential to the arson appeared to be unprecedented. Loyola Law School professor Stan Goldman said a key consideration was whether it was foreseeable to Fowler that five men would die of heart attacks when he set the fire. He cited a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision reversing the death sentence of a man charged with aiding and abetting a murder. The court held that the sentence should not apply to someone who didn't kill, attempt or intend to kill the victim. Smith said the evidence shows Fowler personally and intentionally started the blaze. Fowler, who had a long criminal record, was back in prison for burglary by the time authorities charged him with setting the blaze, one of many fires that raged simultaneously throughout Southern California in 2003. He also was convicted of serial sodomy of an inmate and sentenced to three terms of 25 years to life while in prison awaiting trial. Prosecutors at the arson trial portrayed Fowler as a sadistic felon who raped, robbed and tortured people throughout his life. Defense attorneys said Fowler never acknowledged starting the fire and suffered a horrific childhood with methamphetamine-addicted parents and a neighbor who molested him. Prosecutors said Fowler gave authorities a note in 2008 acknowledging he was there when the fire began. The following year, he told reporters he had been badgered into making a confession. Defense attorney Don Jordan said before sentencing that there was doubt about whether Fowler was responsible for the blaze, and his client didn't know where or when it started. "For all these reasons, please don't impose the death penalty on this poor creature before you," Jordan told the judge.
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Jan 30, 2013 4:47:23 GMT -8
But ... but ... but ... those things didn't influence the arsonists' decision at all! He was simply a worthless human being even while plotting away in the womb on how to terrorize society.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 30, 2013 6:59:11 GMT -8
But ... but ... but ... those things didn't influence the arsonists' decision at all! He was simply a worthless human being even while plotting away in the womb on how to terrorize society. he wasn't smart enough in the womb to plan on terrorizing society. this punk was twenty years old when he murdered the five people. by that time, you are supposed to be mature enough to think like a human, and overcome any bad childhood. besides, this one had a long criminal record, and couldn't even behave itself while in prison
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 30, 2013 7:01:50 GMT -8
There you go yet again. Bad start-bad middle and bad ending. If society threw more money in at the begining of these problems-they would save a chunk load of money eventually and many more peoples lives too. We still dont get it. Are they going to do that anytime soon. It doesn't look like it to me. Too many vested interests. this fool is NOT mentally ill. there were undoubtedly those who tried to help him. he was in juve several times. he CHOSE to not be helped.
|
|
|
Post by ♬ pkbucko ♬ on Jan 30, 2013 8:38:06 GMT -8
They should burn him at the stake. And televise it. That would be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by Willing Sniper on Jan 30, 2013 10:37:33 GMT -8
Fuck him. Die bitch. Good going California.
|
|
|
Post by Willing Sniper on Jan 30, 2013 10:39:22 GMT -8
California gets a lot right.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 11:19:39 GMT -8
Taking all the facts into consideration I'd have concur. Yay California.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2013 11:45:28 GMT -8
Do you concur with everyone ? Do you have an issue with concurring? Is it a fetish?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2013 1:17:20 GMT -8
this fool is NOT mentally ill. there were undoubtedly those who tried to help him. he was in juve several times. he CHOSE to not be helped. Did he CHOOSE to be born into his crappy circumstances ? no, he didn't. he DID choose to hang onto them though
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2013 1:20:32 GMT -8
California gets a lot right. not usually. i'm FROM california. i spent about 50 years of my life there. granted, california has twice passed amendments to the constitution defining marriage, and this past election, voted down a proposition to abolish the death penalty, but, other than that, cali hasn't done much right in several years
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Jan 31, 2013 5:16:25 GMT -8
Nothing like being ruled by the Mormon Church, eh, Jumbo?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 31, 2013 15:19:29 GMT -8
Nothing like being ruled by the Mormon Church, eh, Jumbo? it's california, not utah
|
|
|
Post by Willing Sniper on Jan 31, 2013 15:37:40 GMT -8
California gets a lot right. not usually. i'm FROM california. i spent about 50 years of my life there. granted, california has twice passed amendments to the constitution defining marriage, and this past election, voted down a proposition to abolish the death penalty, but, other than that, cali hasn't done much right in several years SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- After years of cutting education and social services to close deficits, California's budget is finally in balance as long as state lawmakers follow Gov. Jerry Brown's guidance to hold the line on spending, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget analyst said Monday.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 1, 2013 2:50:23 GMT -8
not usually. i'm FROM california. i spent about 50 years of my life there. granted, california has twice passed amendments to the constitution defining marriage, and this past election, voted down a proposition to abolish the death penalty, but, other than that, cali hasn't done much right in several years SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- After years of cutting education and social services to close deficits, California's budget is finally in balance as long as state lawmakers follow Gov. Jerry Brown's guidance to hold the line on spending, the Legislature's nonpartisan budget analyst said Monday. one more good thing. that's the first time in decades. there usually isn't a budget, balanced or otherwise, until months after the deadline
|
|
|
Post by Shirina on Feb 1, 2013 4:40:41 GMT -8
Sure, that's what the map says. But keep in mind that the Mormon Church put up over $46 million in lies and propaganda to get people to go out and vote against gay marriage in California. It's the same old refrain ... make people afraid of it and they'll vote against it. The Mormon church should be taxed on all of their holdings for that alone.
Like George Carlin said about churches:
"Tax them! Tax the motherfuckers! Let them pay their admission price like everybody else!"
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Feb 2, 2013 8:10:09 GMT -8
Sure, that's what the map says. But keep in mind that the Mormon Church put up over $46 million in lies and propaganda to get people to go out and vote against gay marriage in California. It's the same old refrain ... make people afraid of it and they'll vote against it. The Mormon church should be taxed on all of their holdings for that alone. Like George Carlin said about churches: "Tax them! Tax the motherfuckers! Let them pay their admission price like everybody else!" i NEVER vote according to commercials, or any advertising whatsoever. i read the actual text of every propositon on the ballot, and decide SOLELY on what the proposed law actually says, rather than anyone else's interpretation of it. that is why i voted for prop 22, and would have voted for prop 8 if i had still lived there. the majority of people do NOT vote against something because they are afraid of it. they vote against something because it's inherently wrong, such as gay marriage. of course, NO ONE has ever voted against gay marriage in california. they have simply voted to codify what marriage actually means
|
|