shotbanner.jpeg

July 27, 2006

Yates

Andrea Yatesfound not guilty due to insanity for drowning her children:

After being acquitted by reason of insanity in her children's bathtub drowning deaths, Andrea Yates won't spend her life in prison - but she will be committed to a state mental hospital.

One day after her acquittal, Yates will learn Thursday where she will be held until she is no longer deemed a threat. It will likely be North Texas State Hospital in Vernon, a maximum-security state facility, said her lead attorney, George Parnham.

Today is interviewing Rusty Yates, the father (who came in, himself, for immense public abuse from people who assumed that his abuse had to be the root cause).

I have no idea what to make of Rusty Yates. On the one hand, he's obviously forgiven his ex-wife for what she did. On the other hand, he expresses resentment to the State of Texas...

...for prosecuting someone who murdered her five children.

Not sure what to think, there.

But it highlights, I think, a movement I've noticed on the part of activists for the mentally-ill - the push to never really hold them accountable for anything they do. Yes, I know - if someone is really mentally ill, they don't really know what they're doing.

But a case in Minneapolis several years ago put it all in stark relief for me. A Somali man with some sort of severe dissociative disorder was walking down (if memory serves) Bloomington Avenue, swinging a machete - a blade that in the hands of a strong man (and the subject was indeed strong) cut a person's head cleanly off.

The police responded. They negotiated, the best they could (considering the guy was apparently dissociative and pretty much impossible to talk with) - and then the guy started swinging the machete again. Now, bear in mind that inside 15 feet, a big guy with a machete and a cop with a gun are pretty evenly-matched (especially if they're armed with nine-millimeter handguns, which are notoriously poor man-stoppers). The cops were in mortal danger, and opened fire, killing the guy with several hits.

Activists for the mentally ill decried the killing. Asked if it would be better to lose a cop...

...silence.

Not sure how to react to the Yates acquittal.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by Mitch at July 27, 2006 07:48 AM | TrackBack
Comments

She just better never walk free. If she is institutionalized, OK...I hope never to hear someday of her being "deemed not a threat" and released. She chased down her oldest and drowned him while he screamed and fought-yes, that's insane, but it's also evil. Or was it even worse to drown the baby who couldn't fight back...

At least she didn't kill her kids for a man ala Susan Smith or whatever her name was. Gack.

Posted by: Colleen at July 27, 2006 10:53 AM

Sweet baby Jesus, I agree with Scary Colleen.

Posted by: angryclown at July 27, 2006 11:43 AM

As I posted, of course she's insane! What sane person drowns his or her own children?

What I don't understand is why this keeps her out of jail.

If my wife murdered my children, I would not be nearly as forgiving as ol' Rusty!

Posted by: Dan S. at July 27, 2006 11:59 AM

Granted I can't imagine being in that sitution, but why don't the cops shoot him in the leg? Why do they wait until they have to kill him?

Posted by: fulcrum at July 27, 2006 01:09 PM

"Granted I can't imagine being in that sitution, but why don't the cops shoot him in the leg? Why do they wait until they have to kill him?"

Because if you shoot him from a distance people will say "but you weren't in immediate danger." Plus shooting at someone is deadly force, even if you aim for a hard to hit non-center-of-mass target, like the knee of someone who's walking. Tell you what, you try to hit my knee with a pistol shot from 50 feet. If you miss I get to charge at you with the machete.

Posted by: Bob at July 27, 2006 01:46 PM

"don't the cops shoot him in the leg? Why do they wait until they have to kill him?"

Terry caught a lot of it.

One of the things you learn in permit class - inside 25 feet, someone with a knife (or, worse, a machete) is pretty evenly-matched with someone with a typical handgun. If that person is impaired (drugs or severe dissociation), it's even worse. There are plenty of cases of drug-impaired/dissociative people charging at cops or armed civilians, and stabbing, clubbing or slashing them even as bullets rip through them. A bullet (especially a relatively weak one, like the 9mm autos most cops use these days) isn't going to flip a guy over like in the movies; there've been cases of dissociative and drugged perps that didn't even KNOW they'd been hit several times. It's one reason cops are switching from 9mm to .45 caliber...

Guns aren't used to incapacitate; if a cop believes simple incapacitation is enough, they'll use the sticks or the mace. If the gun is drawn (which will bring an investigation on a cop, and worse on a civilian permit holder, even if no shot is fired), there'd better be a reason to *threaten using lethal force* - a reasonable belief that you could be killed or gravely harmed.

Posted by: mitch at July 27, 2006 01:53 PM

My daughter-in-law and I had the old "shoot him in the leg" argument with my son (her husband-the deputy) one time. We figured cops should shoot to incapacitate...why not? Wouldn't that be easy and "kinder" or whatever asinine thing we figured made MUCH more sense. Uh, no. When you shoot your weapon, you shoot to kill. You aim for the torso, you empty the gun. Otherwise, you don't pull it out. And that goes for everybody, not just cops. Much scorn was heaped upon us (dumb, bleeding heart "girls"!) and we argued back for a while and then began to see the wisdom in it.

Posted by: Colleen at July 27, 2006 03:47 PM

Hang out with cops & FBI agents sometime. You'll find that their favorite weapon when they know there's serious bad guys on the end of an arrest is the shotgun. It seems that staring down something with that big a barrel has a calming effect on the situation. And if the subject is stupid at least they'll be safe. They depend on a handgun only when they have to do so.

Posted by: nerdbert at July 27, 2006 10:36 PM

Yates.
All horror aside (if that's possible), the insurance company saved themselves a few bucks at the expense of 6 lives. Now the state of TX gets to pick up a lifelong bill at the taxpayer's expense.
I think that when this happens, the media ought to make public the insurance companies responsible for shoving Mrs. Yates out the door.
Something has got to give way when it comes to money over humanity in this country.

Posted by: Carmelitta at July 27, 2006 11:16 PM

Many many many years ago we had a woman in Wichita who killed her kids with a knife one night. She was deemed mentally ill and locked up in an hospital for a number of years. She was eventually released and told the local media she was looking forward to living a normal life and having more kids.

I spent a few years as a cop and was always told you were not shooting to kill, but rather shooting to end the threat. You always shot for center mass because 1.bigger target and 2.usually ended the threat. We were also tought to keep shooting until the threat was over, not shoot once, see what happens, shoot once more, see what happens, etc. This is why you read about a suspect shot 15 times by the cops.

Posted by: buzz at July 28, 2006 03:29 PM

Angryclown admitted: "Sweet baby Jesus, I agree with Scary Colleen."

That's because, despite what everyone says about you, you're really not stupid.

Posted by: Kermit at July 29, 2006 09:46 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi