Author Topic: Andrea Yates  (Read 38475 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #165 on: May 21, 2006, 01:34:00 PM »
http://newsroom.lilly.com/ReleaseDetail ... eID=197630

Psychiatry: Mark Ragins, M.D., Los Angeles

When a social worker friend was killed by a homeless, mentally ill man in Los Angeles, Dr. Ragins knew the true culprit was a system that couldn't successfully care for its mentally ill. Since then, he's helped build The Mental Health Association's Village Integrated Service Agency, a model mental health agency focusing on patient wellness and recovery instead of patient illness. As the Village's medical director, Dr. Ragins has focused on creating a program that feels more like a second home than a hospital -- where treatment means more than just medication, and patients are partners in the process of recovery. Dr. Ragins also works alongside and mentors workers who reach out to the homeless population in some of the poorest areas of Los Angeles.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #166 on: May 24, 2006, 02:58:00 PM »
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #167 on: May 29, 2006, 09:50:00 PM »
Damm when will you pepole wake up????? It really makes me wonder how sane YOU are.Tha woman killed her kids,she planed it out, she followed through with it. Now how stupid are yous? Shes no more crazy then you or I.Depressed my ASS. How many of you have been depressed to the point to where you want to kill a family member or a loved one? How many of you have followed through with those feelings? I see all the time here on this post Poor Andrea,her husband pushed her to the brakeing point.BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!! How about those poor kids and what there last moments were, what they went through knowing MOMMY was about to kill them. Think about how they were begging MOMMY to stop promsing that they would be good. It makes me sick to think of it and it should you pepole too. Fuck that Scum bag.Shes no good.she needs to be put to death.It piss's me off that my tax dollars are going to houseing and feeding that BITCH.I think you pepole should start thinking of the kids and not her.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #168 on: May 29, 2006, 10:27:00 PM »
Hey, I think you have successfully ignored the facts!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #169 on: May 30, 2006, 02:31:00 PM »
Insanity's legal fall from grace

5/29/2006

By Jonathan Turley

In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham's Sacrifice.

It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.

In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law's greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Eric Michael Clark of Flagstaff, Ariz., who at 17 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia in June 2000 when he killed a police officer whom he thought was an alien. The case might determine whether there is a constitutional basis for the insanity defense.

While Clark allegedly believed he was fighting aliens, many murder defendants in insanity cases believe they're acting on orders from a higher authority:

?In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said.

?In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children ? ages 7 years to six months ? to save them from Satan. Despite a long and documented history of schizophrenia and postpartum depression, Yates was found sane and guilty in the first trial.

?In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God.

?In Lamar, Colo., Rebekah Amaya was tried after telling police she killed her two kids upon orders from a spider. She was found insane.

?In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God.

The Hinckley precedent

These, and other recent cases, show a disturbing lack of consistency among the states on the insanity defense.

Much of this confusion can be traced to the acquittal of John Hinckley on the grounds of insanity after he wounded President Reagan and three others in 1981. It was too much for state legislators, who proceeded to drastically narrow the insanity defense.

Four states ? Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah ? have eliminated any defense that one is insane. Many states, such as Arizona, allow insanity to be used as defense only when defendants could not understand that their conduct was wrong.

Many people might know or suspect that an act is wrong but are unable to resist the impulse or stop themselves from doing the act. Indeed, they might believe that an otherwise "wrong" act is justified by divine instruction.

As for Abraham, he would have made an even worse defendant than Yates does. Abraham recounted how he was told by God, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."

Abraham, if he had not been stopped at the last second by an angel, would have been toast in Arizona. Genesis 22 shows Abraham displaying complete control and even subterfuge in bringing his son to the place of slaughter. Shortly before the planned killing, Abraham told his servants to hold back and allow him and Isaac to go forward alone.

Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up.

"Father?"

"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.

"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"

Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.

Notably, in discussing the story of Abraham and Isaac, churches uniformly emphasize that, as one Internet site called rationalchristianity.net explains, "God's command to Abraham was not wrong, for God has the right to take human life and therefore had the right to command Isaac's death."

God's intervention

For defendants such as Yates, Schlosser, Laney and others, killings were compelled by the same motivation as Abraham's, albeit because of delusions of divine direction. They didn't have an angel who "called out ... from heaven, Abraham! Abraham!' ... 'Do not lay a hand on the boy.' ... 'Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God."

From a defense standpoint, the angel was truly godsend. The convergence of religion, the law and insanity makes for the most difficult cases. Even so, just as religion teaches that we must obey the command of the Almighty even in killing a child, the law must recognize that troubled persons may be acting under the delusion of such orders.

When states fail to recognize the difference between a premeditated and delusional act, they commit an act every bit as immoral as disobeying the command of God.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.
 
Find this article at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... ense_x.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #170 on: June 01, 2006, 07:15:00 PM »
Bye-bye, Katie



Thursday, June 1, 2006

We were all prepared to remark how much fresher the air seemed to smell this morning now that Katie Couric has departed NBC's "Today" show.

Then we remembered that Ms. Couric's replacement is Meredith Vieira.

Oh, well.

Couric spent 15 years in the anchor chair of the perennial No. 1 morning network broadcast. And what an amazingly liberal run it was.

She slobbered over Jimmy Carter as one of "the best ex-presidents this country has ever had" in 1991; she threw around the "flamethrower" label against then-new Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond in 1992.

Couric accused the Reagan administration of "greed" and "materialism" in 1993; in 1995 she called those who believe in gun rights "Second Amendment fundamentalist zealots."

In 2001, Couric shilled on the air for the defense fund of confessed child-killer Andrea Yates; in 2002, she intimated that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

A year later, Couric -- perhaps influenced by her favorite ex-president -- told the world how one of her daughters opposed the war in Iraq; in 2004, she gushed to the point of embarrassment over Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention.

We could go on and on. But we won't. After all, it's breakfast time and eggs and Katie Couric just don't go together very well.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #171 on: June 01, 2006, 09:19:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-06-01 16:15:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Bye-bye, Katie







Thursday, June 1, 2006



We were all prepared to remark how much fresher the air seemed to smell this morning now that Katie Couric has departed NBC's "Today" show.



Then we remembered that Ms. Couric's replacement is Meredith Vieira.



Oh, well.



Couric spent 15 years in the anchor chair of the perennial No. 1 morning network broadcast. And what an amazingly liberal run it was.



She slobbered over Jimmy Carter as one of "the best ex-presidents this country has ever had" in 1991; she threw around the "flamethrower" label against then-new Republican National Committee Chairman Rich Bond in 1992.



Couric accused the Reagan administration of "greed" and "materialism" in 1993; in 1995 she called those who believe in gun rights "Second Amendment fundamentalist zealots."



In 2001, Couric shilled on the air for the defense fund of confessed child-killer Andrea Yates; in 2002, she intimated that President Bush had advance knowledge of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.



A year later, Couric -- perhaps influenced by her favorite ex-president -- told the world how one of her daughters opposed the war in Iraq; in 2004, she gushed to the point of embarrassment over Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention.



We could go on and on. But we won't. After all, it's breakfast time and eggs and Katie Couric just don't go together very well. "


I knew I liked this woman. Good things all and every word of hers was true.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #172 on: June 02, 2006, 12:25:00 PM »
It is hard to rationalize mental illness.
Common sense doesn't apply. It is an illness.

I would say that most delusions are the ill
person thinking that they are God.

Then paranoia.

Then command voices to kill someone.

Remember, the US average for mothers killing
children is 180 murders per year.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #173 on: June 03, 2006, 11:57:00 AM »
Quote
On 2006-06-02 08:31:00, Eliscu2 wrote:

"It seems like these voices always command you to kill innocent Children as some kind of sacrifice to G-d. Any kind of real Mother would have to question her faith at this time! I would choose my Children first as all Mothers do. Even Animals in the wild put thier Children first! Funny how Andrea was so depressed she did not kill herself?

I have no doubt she was insane. I just have a hard time believeing she did not take it out on herself not the Children!
"


I want to address your statement about a real Mother questioning her faith. I am going to go way out on a limb here and reveal some things that I have never told anyone, ever. But, I think it might be illuminating.

My Mom suffered from schizophrenia. She heard voices. Now, I am no expert on this stuff and can't get inside her head to tell you what it is like but I can share some experiences.

I remember once as a small boy going into the kitchen where my Mom was laughing at jokes I could not hear. I wanted a drink and tried to get her attention. I couldn't. I jumped up and down, screamed at her, and tugged relentlessly on her arm. When she eventually noticed me, I asked her what she was laughing at. She said, "Oh nothing. I was just thinking funny things." She zoned out again, and my older sister lifted me to sink to get my drink.

My Mom would sometimes pull me from grade school for no reason and go 'shopping.' She would spend money way beyond what the family could afford. Fortunately, we lived in a small town where everyone knew us. The merchants would allow my Mom to buy this stuff, but they would call my Dad out of work to come get her and return these things. I remember standing on a street corner with my Mom and the packages and we were lost (within walking distance of home) and she would be having conversations with unseen people (or talking to herself). I couldn't get her attention to lead her home. My Dad would pick us up.

Later in life I learned that my Dad had a difficult time in getting my Mom committed to mental hospital and it must have been emotionally devastating to him. My Mom spent about a year in a mental hospital. I was about 8 or 9 years old.

I have learned that when people hear voices, they need to reconcile these voices with their lives. They need a rationalization for them. Some people come to believe that God or demons are talking to them. My Mom came to believe she was experiencing mental telepathy. My Mom was a paranoid schizophrenic and believed these voices were the result of a conspiracy on the part of my Dad's family. She believed my Dad's family was jealous of her for taking my Dad away from them. She suspected they were 'causing' the voices by using mental telepathy.

As a teen, I tried to explain to my Mom that what she was experiencing was an illness caused by a chemical imbalance in her brain and the medication she was taking helped treat the symptoms. She would have none of that! The medication was part of the conspiracy and she suspected the pills may have even allowed the telepathy to be possible. She only took her medication because she feared if she didn't she would be sent back to the mental hospital.

Once, when my Dad was explaining to me that my Mom underwent ECT while in the hospital (this was in the 1960s) and this damaged her memory, my Mom overheard and was livid. She had no recollection of the ECT and denied it vehemently.

At this point, I want to say that my Mom was an intelligent and loving person. She had a college degree in education and wanted to be a teacher, but of course, she could not. She could not enjoy books, or movies, or even long conversations because she could not focus on these things through the voices. So, she enjoyed variety shows and just being with her family. My Mom was always nice to me.

I am fortunate in that I came from a supportive and loving family and we did what we could for my Mom and for each other. It wasn't easy and hurt most in my teen years when I was too ashamed to bring friends home.

When I read stories like those of Andrea Yates, my heart goes out to the kids and people involved. It is difficult to understand, let alone deal with a mentally ill person in your immediate family, especially if you are a child. I consider myself lucky that my Mom came up with 'telepathy' instead of God or demons. I guess I am just lucky to be here.

Be careful before you judge Andrea Yates. You have no idea what it must be like to be trapped inside her head. These voices are very real to those who hear them. They are all consuming. They cannot help it. We must help them if we can.

I am teary eyed writing this. My Mom died of cancer in 1995. I miss her.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #174 on: June 03, 2006, 10:35:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-05-29 19:27:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Hey, I think you have successfully ignored the facts!



"
No I think you have.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #175 on: June 03, 2006, 10:38:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-05-30 11:31:00, Anonymous wrote:

"Insanity's legal fall from grace



5/29/2006



By Jonathan Turley



In the National Gallery of Art in Washington hangs a cherished Rembrandt titled Abraham's Sacrifice.



It is an etching of Abraham about to slay his son, Isaac, upon the orders of God, to show his faith. The scene from Genesis 22:1-12 is repeated in stained glass windows, paintings and other displays worldwide. It is also a scene being repeated in real life by demented individuals who believe that they have been given divine instructions to slay their loved ones.



In the past few months, the nation has found itself again in the middle of one of the law's greatest quagmires: how to define insanity, and when it should be a defense.



Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Eric Michael Clark of Flagstaff, Ariz., who at 17 was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia in June 2000 when he killed a police officer whom he thought was an alien. The case might determine whether there is a constitutional basis for the insanity defense.



While Clark allegedly believed he was fighting aliens, many murder defendants in insanity cases believe they're acting on orders from a higher authority:



?In San Francisco, Lashaun Harris is on trial in the murder of her three kids, whom she allegedly threw into the frigid waters of San Francisco Bay in October. Harris believed that God wanted her children as a sacrifice, police said.



?In Houston, a new trial has been ordered for Andrea Yates, a suburban housewife who has admitted to drowning her five children ? ages 7 years to six months ? to save them from Satan. Despite a long and documented history of schizophrenia and postpartum depression, Yates was found sane and guilty in the first trial.



?In McKinney, Texas, Dena Schlosser was tried for a second time and found not guilty by reason of insanity (after a first jury deadlocked) in the killing of her 10-month-old daughter, Maggie, on orders from God.



?In Lamar, Colo., Rebekah Amaya was tried after telling police she killed her two kids upon orders from a spider. She was found insane.



?In Tyler, Texas, Deanna Laney was found insane after she crushed the skulls of her three children; she believed she was given instructions, like Abraham, from God.



The Hinckley precedent



These, and other recent cases, show a disturbing lack of consistency among the states on the insanity defense.



Much of this confusion can be traced to the acquittal of John Hinckley on the grounds of insanity after he wounded President Reagan and three others in 1981. It was too much for state legislators, who proceeded to drastically narrow the insanity defense.



Four states ? Idaho, Kansas, Montana and Utah ? have eliminated any defense that one is insane. Many states, such as Arizona, allow insanity to be used as defense only when defendants could not understand that their conduct was wrong.



Many people might know or suspect that an act is wrong but are unable to resist the impulse or stop themselves from doing the act. Indeed, they might believe that an otherwise "wrong" act is justified by divine instruction.



As for Abraham, he would have made an even worse defendant than Yates does. Abraham recounted how he was told by God, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."



Abraham, if he had not been stopped at the last second by an angel, would have been toast in Arizona. Genesis 22 shows Abraham displaying complete control and even subterfuge in bringing his son to the place of slaughter. Shortly before the planned killing, Abraham told his servants to hold back and allow him and Isaac to go forward alone.



Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, Isaac spoke up.



"Father?"



"Yes, my son?" Abraham replied.



"The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"



Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.



Notably, in discussing the story of Abraham and Isaac, churches uniformly emphasize that, as one Internet site called rationalchristianity.net explains, "God's command to Abraham was not wrong, for God has the right to take human life and therefore had the right to command Isaac's death."



God's intervention



For defendants such as Yates, Schlosser, Laney and others, killings were compelled by the same motivation as Abraham's, albeit because of delusions of divine direction. They didn't have an angel who "called out ... from heaven, Abraham! Abraham!' ... 'Do not lay a hand on the boy.' ... 'Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God."



From a defense standpoint, the angel was truly godsend. The convergence of religion, the law and insanity makes for the most difficult cases. Even so, just as religion teaches that we must obey the command of the Almighty even in killing a child, the law must recognize that troubled persons may be acting under the delusion of such orders.



When states fail to recognize the difference between a premeditated and delusional act, they commit an act every bit as immoral as disobeying the command of God.



Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, and he is a member of USA TODAY's board of contributors.

 

Find this article at:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/ed ... ense_x.htm"
BLUH BLUH BLUH.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #176 on: June 04, 2006, 01:11:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-06-02 08:31:00, Eliscu2 wrote:

"It seems like these voices always command you to kill innocent Children as some kind of sacrifice to G-d. Any kind of real Mother would have to question her faith at this time! I would choose my Children first as all Mothers do. Even Animals in the wild put thier Children first! Funny how Andrea was so depressed she did not kill herself?

I have no doubt she was insane. I just have a hard time believeing she did not take it out on herself not the Children!
"
I agree with u a 100%.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Anonymous

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 164653
  • Karma: +3/-4
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #177 on: June 04, 2006, 01:19:00 PM »
If your husband or wife or someone u knew took one of your family members and killed them in cold blood just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do? What if you came home and your husband KILLED your kids? Would u feel sorry for him?Would U have a pitty party for him? Hell I know I would want him or her DEAD. We are tlking about children here not a puppy or a cat.I think if the same think happend to you BLEEDING HEARTS you would feel diffent. Wouldn't ya's. You are all a bunch of DUMB ASS's. ::unhappy::  ::fuckoff::  ::bangin::
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Truth Searcher

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 225
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #178 on: June 04, 2006, 01:27:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-06-03 08:57:00, AtomicAnt wrote:

Quote

Be careful before you judge Andrea Yates'. You have no idea what it must be like to be trapped inside her head. These voices are very real to those who hear them. They are all consuming. They cannot help it. We must help them if we can.




I wholeheartedly agree with this AtomicAnt.  Anyone who is a mother knows that only insanity would lead to actions such as Andrea Yates'.  I can (slightly)understand the mother who slaps a child out of anger.  But, the premeditated murder of not one, but five of her children was truly insane.  And this was not an out of the blue incident.  She had been medicated for years for depression.  I often wonder at the husband's sensibilities ... who left his very despondent wife home with 5 small children.

Mental illness is so misunderstood.

Don't get me wrong, I am of the opinion that criminally insane persons need punishment.  I just have a hard time believing that she was of a "right mind" when she drowned her own flesh and blood.  No sane mother could do such a thing.[ This Message was edited by: Truth Searcher on 2006-06-04 10:28 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
quot;The test of the morality of a society is what is does for it\'s children\"

Deitrich Bonhoeffer

Offline AtomicAnt

  • Posts: 552
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Andrea Yates
« Reply #179 on: June 04, 2006, 02:32:00 PM »
Quote
On 2006-06-04 10:19:00, Anonymous wrote:

"If your husband or wife or someone u knew took one of your family members and killed them in cold blood just because they were DEPRESSES what would u do? What if you came home and your husband KILLED your kids? Would u feel sorry for him?Would U have a pitty party for him? Hell I know I would want him or her DEAD. We are tlking about children here not a puppy or a cat.I think if the same think happend to you BLEEDING HEARTS you would feel diffent. Wouldn't ya's. You are all a bunch of DUMB ASS's. ::unhappy::  ::fuckoff::  ::bangin:: "


One of the tenants of civilization is to get past these extreme feelings and deal with situations in a sane, humane, and rational way.

Yes, the emotional trauma would be devestating and the intial reaction would be to kill the killer. If you come home and find your wife in bed with another man, you might think similar thoughts. But that does not justify murdering your wife and her lover.

In order to live a truly moral life, we must extend our values to everyone around us; even those who commit actions that are heinous. They do not lose their humanity, nor should we lose ours. Two wrongs do not make a right. Revenge is not justice.

Laws and policies, and the decisions made based on them, should not be made out of anger and reaction, but based on the criteria of what is best for society and what is fair and humane.

You can call me a bleeding heart if you like. I wll wear that badge with honor and pride.

Let me go on record and state; I oppose the death penalty.[ This Message was edited by: AtomicAnt on 2006-06-04 11:33 ]
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »