Maryville woman accused of slaying man she thought raped child

[mysteriew]

A woman acquitted of first-degree murder in the shooting of a man she believed raped her daughter is now on trial for second-degree murder.

Both trials stem from Kimberly Cunningham's admitted shooting of 39-year-old Coy Hundley in 2003.

Cunningham has said she shot Hundley after her daughter told her the man had raped her.

According to testimony in the first trial Cunningham confronted Hundley with the rape allegation. But he reportedly laughed at her and asked what she was going to do about it.
http://www.wmcstations.com/Global/story.asp?S=4025114

[Jeana (DP)]

Excuse me, but why is this woman being tried twice? I mean she deserves to be punished for murdering the dude, but this is double jeopardy. :confused:

[SewingDeb]

I can't say I wouldn't be tempted to do the same thing, especially if challenged by the scum.

[mysteriew]

Excuse me, but why is this woman being tried twice? I mean she deserves to be punished for murdering the dude, but this is double jeopardy. :confused:

I wondered about that too.
Would the fact that there were different charges be involved? First trial was for 1st degree, and the second was for 2 nd degree. That is the only thing that I could figure out.

[SewingDeb]

Excuse me, but why is this woman being tried twice? I mean she deserves to be punished for murdering the dude, but this is double jeopardy. :confused:

That confuses me, too. Was second degree not offered as an option in the first trial?

[CyberLaw]

She is not subjected to double jeopardy. She was tried and acquitted of first degree murder(inentional, pre-planned).

But now to avoid double jeopardy, they are trying her for second degree murder, so they are not trying her for the same charge, just the same occurance.

Jeopardy would be attached if she was re-tried on first degree murder charges(which will never happen), because the Prosection would no be allowed to file charges and the defence would utter "double jeopardy is attached".

Hope this helps.........

[Jeana (DP)]

She is not subjected to double jeopardy. She was tried and acquitted of first degree murder(inentional, pre-planned).

But now to avoid double jeopardy, they are trying her for second degree murder, so they are not trying her for the same charge, just the same occurance.

Jeopardy would be attached if she was re-tried on first degree murder charges(which will never happen), because the Prosection would no be allowed to file charges and the defence would utter "double jeopardy is attached".

Hope this helps.........


Wouldn't it save everyone a whole lot of time, trouble, expense, etc., if they had just allowed 2nd degree as an option???

[mysteriew]

Wouldn't it save everyone a whole lot of time, trouble, expense, etc., if they had just allowed 2nd degree as an option???

They probably thought they had a slam dunk on the first degree. Filing on the second degree was probably only thought of when she was aquitted of 1st degree. Wonder if it is too late for me to establish residence there and get on the jury? I know the correct way to vote in this situation.

[SadieMae]

I think it's a shame to go after this woman twice. It seems the prosecution should be spending their time on other cases. I'd probably do the same thing she did. The justice systems sometime seems so screwed up to me. In one case they want to send a mother to prison for protecting her child. Whether shooting the guy after the rape and not during the rape doesn't make a difference to me. JMO. In other cases they go after the mother for NOT protecting her children, as in the case on another thread where she got 110 well deserved years in prison.

[rachrach99]

After going to trial once, they should just offer her deal to a lesser charge, instead of making her go through another trial. I am sure her and her family have been through enough. Prayers for her and her daughter.

[jannuncutt]

I think it's a shame to go after this woman twice. It seems the prosecution should be spending their time on other cases. I'd probably do the same thing she did. The justice systems sometime seems so screwed up to me. In one case they want to send a mother to prison for protecting her child. Whether shooting the guy after the rape and not during the rape doesn't make a difference to me. JMO. In other cases they go after the mother for NOT protecting her children, as in the case on another thread where she got 110 well deserved years in prison. She murdered an innocent man! :doh:

[mysteriew]

She murdered an innocent man! :doh:

An innocent man? Innocent of what?

[jannuncutt]

An innocent man? Innocent of what? Lord have mercy - I just reread the article. I, obviously, misread it the first time. For some reason, I had it in my head that she thought he raped her daughter but, he didn't. Don't know where the heck I got that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:

[Casshew]

That darn fine print! :D

[Jeana (DP)]

That darn fine print! :D


My favorite part is that she unloaded the gun and reloaded and shot four more times. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. :cool: :cool:

[SadieMae]

Lord have mercy - I just reread the article. I, obviously, misread it the first time. For some reason, I had it in my head that she thought he raped her daughter but, he didn't. Don't know where the heck I got that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bang:
I went back and read the article again too after your post to me about him being and innocent man. Put my glasses to read this time :D . I thought that *I* misread it also.

[mysteriew]

My favorite part is that she unloaded the gun and reloaded and shot four more times. Anything worth doing is worth doing right. :cool: :cool:

See it wasn't premediatated. If it had been premediatated, she would have had enough bullets in the gun the first time.

[SadieMae]

She killed her daughters uncle. Not only did he rape the girl, he also sexually abused her son!! I'd say she did a damn fine job getting rid of him. Link to story....

http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3357390

[Details]

She killed her daughters uncle. Not only did he rape the girl, he also sexually abused her son!! I'd say she did a damn fine job getting rid of him. Link to story....

http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3357390With those details, I wonder if she'll ever be convicted. I don't think I would convict her, probably.

[Jeana (DP)]

Well, this answers the question about the double jeapordy issue:

Kimberly Cunningham will stand trial again. While a jury last month found her not guilty of first degree murder, it could not reach a verdict on the charge of second degree murder.


I'd never be picked to sit on the jury and if I were picked, I'd have to tell them straight out I don't think I could convict. Maybe another jury will be unable to reach a decision and then another jury will be unable to reach a decision. Then, the jury's conscience is clean and the prosecutor will have to get to a point here she/he just gives up???? Hoping.

[SadieMae]

I feel so sorry for her kids. They have to go back to court and testify all over again. It's got to be stressful for them to see their MOM, (she definitely qualifies for title!) to be portrayed as the bad guy in the courts. I don't believe in taking a person's life, but in some cases you just can't help it especially when someone hurt your kids. I could never be on the jury. No way would I find that woman guilty of and degree of murder, justifiable homocide, manslaughter or any charge they want to bring against her for killing that man.

[Jeana (DP)]

I feel so sorry for her kids. They have to go back to court and testify all over again. It's got to be stressful for them to see their MOM, (she definitely qualifies for title!) to be portrayed as the bad guy in the courts. I don't believe in taking a person's life, but in some cases you just can't help it especially when someone hurt your kids. I could never be on the jury. No way would I find that woman guilty of and degree of murder, justifiable homocide, manslaughter or any charge they want to bring against her for killing that man.


I agree, but they're going to be her best chance.

[CyberLaw]

Sorry, I did not have the information that they tried her on 1st and 2nd at the same time.

So the jury was hung on the second degree charge, therefore jeopardy is not attached.

The children are victims in this case no doubt.
Now the children face having to grow up without their mother, when they need her the most.........even though the man that did this to them is dead.

I don't condone her actions, I may do the same thing given the same circumstances.

But she acted in a vigilante manner, in a civilized society.

You weigh a jury decision based on facts of the case, not personal emotion.

A man took a baseball bat to the person who harmed his son. His son told him what happened, the man grabbed a bat, got into his car, beat the man and broke both legs.

The public was sympathic to this man, but he was sentenced to jail as the judge told him that he was judge and jury outside of the legal framework established for the crime that was committed against his son.

Killing a person is against the law, if you feel they deserved it or not, if you feel justified or not, if you try to justify it or not.

In the end, you committed a crime.........murder

[SadieMae]

The only words I can think of to say about Ms. Cunningham is..

YOU GO GIRL!!!:)

[Linda7NJ]

Give the mother a medal and a pat on the head and send her home!

[turbosleuthing]

Give the mother a medal and a pat on the head and send her home!


:clap: :clap: :clap:

[tennessee]

This is what I consider a case of justifiable homicide. I truly believe in the depths of my heart that if some sob raped one of my babies, I would do the same thing she did. I just can't find mercy for child rapists.



JMHO

[Linda7NJ]

This is what I consider a case of justifiable homicide. I truly believe in the depths of my heart that if some sob raped one of my babies, I would do the same thing she did. I just can't find mercy for child rapists.



JMHO
It makes no sense to me to leave it to the "justice" system when these freaks skip out of courts or are released to do it again every damn day!!!!

[mysteriew]

It makes no sense to me to leave it to the "justice" system when these freaks skip out of courts or are released to do it again every damn day!!!!

This is true. If this mother had not taken action- think what she and her children had to look forward to..........anywhere from 6 mos. to a year until it went to trial. He may or may not have been kept in jail in that time. Fear as to whether or not he would actually reach trial, or it might be dismissed. Testifing in a trial, having defense attornies try to heap the blame on the children. Listening to "his" mitigating circumstances- poor guy. :furious:
Then if they got lucky and the prosecuting atty didn't give him a plea which allowed for probation, they might actually see him go to jail- for how long? How long would their peace last, before they had to fear him getting out of jail again, and coming after them in retaliation? And how much damage would the children have suffered, not only from the rape, but from the damage the justice system put them through?
They may lose their mom for a time, but at least they know that she stood up for them!

[SadieMae]

I'm sure we could all come up with a list of convicted offenders who raped and molested children who were eventually let out of prison for one reason or another, and went on to reoffend. For this creep, it was game over!

[Details]

This is what I consider a case of justifiable homicide. I truly believe in the depths of my heart that if some sob raped one of my babies, I would do the same thing she did. I just can't find mercy for child rapists.

JMHOI can't say I would without trying the police first. That's what does sound really wrong (not wrong enough to put her in jail for life nor for too long). There are always the mistakes, but by and large, the justice system does do it right. Put him in prison, ruin his life, and do it right so you don't have to go to jail. If the cops fail, if the court system fails, if he is out on bail and so much as approaches you - sure, then kill him. But not without giving the system a chance to work.

[CyberLaw]

When you take revenge on someone, you lower yourself to their standards.

In this case, the revenge that this women "exacted" upon the alleged criminal was even lower.

Can you imagine a world where people feel "justifed" by their own actions into committing murder and then have no consequences for their actions.

Even if this women is acquitted by a Jury, I can see the Judge saying the words: Jury nullification and imposing a sentence upon her.

Or else, she would get away with murder...........and others will follow and then the USA will be a lot more violent society then it is now.

May I also point out the 10 year old girl was "allegedly" raped. If this man was found guilty in a court of law, then he would have been "convicted" of rape and there would be no doubt to the varacity of the "allegations".

A non-criminal homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide), usually committed in self-defense or in defense of another (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_defense_and_defense_of_others), may be called justifiable homicide in some cases. A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime), such as rape (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape), armed robbery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbery), or murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder). The assailant's intent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea) to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time.

A homicide performed out of vengeance, or retribution for action in the past would generally not be considered justifiable.

So this crime does not fit the legal defination of justifable homicide.

This women might feel like she was "justified" in her own mind, but often "murderers" try to rationalize and justify their actions when they kill another person.

[Linda7NJ]

EDITED
Can you imagine a world where people feel "justifed" by their own actions into committing murder and then have no consequences for their actions.

Or else, she would get away with murder...........and others will follow and then the USA will be a lot more violent society then it is now.




I would imagine there would be far fewer REPEAT pedophiles! That would be a good thing. Frankly, I am sick to death of the all rights twisted sickos enjoy, while innocent child victims keep piling up.

Violence in society isn't perpetrated by law abiding citizens. I would say 99% of violent crimes are committed by LOW LIFE CRIMINALS and they have a very high recidivism rate.

[Tranaice]

This is what I consider a case of justifiable homicide. I truly believe in the depths of my heart that if some sob raped one of my babies, I would do the same thing she did. I just can't find mercy for child rapists.



JMHO
I hear you! I agree completely.

[Gozgals]

When you take revenge on someone, you lower yourself to their standards.

In this case, the revenge that this women "exacted" upon the alleged criminal was even lower..Well, maybe if you are willing to risk the consequences for the cause, then lowering yourself is well-worth the effort. That must be looked upon by the situation of those that are harmed in certain instances. This may not be a popular opinion, but when faced with those circumstances, it is the decision of the person to weight the outcome.

Your opinion is noted, but it I do not find her position the lower choice. I find she took her ground and the only choice she felt she had in her SITUATION. We cannot walk in another shoes!
--"Also, this does not raise the standard of violence in the "USA!" Another blame statement of the USA, whereas when can look at other countries and find violent offenders and laws that do not deal with offenders in the crime of pedophiles and rape. I do not want to cite deals that Canada made with horrendous criminals either.

As to LindaNJ statements, I totally agree.

Just think one more rapist or pedophile won't be walking the street to re-offend. That is what we want to see till our laws are changed. I think of all that have lost their lives because of these sicko monsters and cry each day. Just think of the animal J. Duncan, (I shutter to print his name). If-the justice system kept better track of him and he did not have free reign maybe a family, & children would be alive. Others would not have to endure the nightmare he has left upon our society. We still seem to uncover more of his crimes.

I say AMEN. God gave us free will, some of us use it differently. We write letters, we try to enact new laws, some choose a different method because sometimes in our hearts we know the law will not work.

Sorry for the rant
Gozgals

[Jeana (DP)]

I agree. These days, unfortunately it doesn't seem like that big of a stretch for these guys to go from molesting and raping children to killing them. I think she killed that SOB in self-defense of her child and of any child that the SOB may have come into contact with. Once LE starts to step up to the plate and take care of business, parents have the right to do what's necessary in order to protect their children. So, if anyone rapes one of my children, I'll lower myself as low as I need to go to make sure the SOB gets to hell just as fast as I can get him there.

[Details]

But - will you just go kill him without even calling the police? Without even trying to get him jailed? If so - think about the Mc Martin preschool case, and Dale Akiki. Dale was a nice, wonderful man, weird looking, but dedicated to his children. He was arrested after a bunch of them made accusations that he was molesting them in the most horrible ways possible. Not just one child, several. Had you killed him based on that, you'd be wrong, you'd have killed an innocent man. The problem was a psychologist who lead the children, used hypnosis and several other techniques that generated false memories - with the best of intentions on his part, the childrens part, the parent's part, an innocent man was falsely accused, jailed, and tried. At trial, everything came apart - the stories were inconsistient, impossible, and denied by children in the same room as the supposed acts who were not 'helped' by that particular psychologist. Pretty much the same story for McMartin.

I know, all parents believe their children, believe these things happened, especially when more than one child says so, but even if it was only their child. But even without any malice, there can be horrible mistakes, and jumping the gun to go kill someone without even giving the police and the courts a chance is wrong. In this case, it sounds like she probably got the right person, but it isn't a good thing to let go. And sometimes there is malice - misidentifications because the child is too afraid of the molester to name them; divorce cases where a parent uses false accusations to try for better custody or just to hurt the other person, etc.

He probably did it - but we'll never be sure. If the police refused to do anything, then she has no other choice but to take it into her own hands - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.

[aussiegran]

But - will you just go kill him without even calling the police? Without even trying to get him jailed? If so - think about the Mc Martin preschool case, and Dale Akiki. Dale was a nice, wonderful man, weird looking, but dedicated to his children. He was arrested after a bunch of them made accusations that he was molesting them in the most horrible ways possible. Not just one child, several. Had you killed him based on that, you'd be wrong, you'd have killed an innocent man. The problem was a psychologist who lead the children, used hypnosis and several other techniques that generated false memories - with the best of intentions on his part, the childrens part, the parent's part, an innocent man was falsely accused, jailed, and tried. At trial, everything came apart - the stories were inconsistient, impossible, and denied by children in the same room as the supposed acts who were not 'helped' by that particular psychologist. Pretty much the same story for McMartin.

I know, all parents believe their children, believe these things happened, especially when more than one child says so, but even if it was only their child. But even without any malice, there can be horrible mistakes, and jumping the gun to go kill someone without even giving the police and the courts a chance is wrong. In this case, it sounds like she probably got the right person, but it isn't a good thing to let go. And sometimes there is malice - misidentifications because the child is too afraid of the molester to name them; divorce cases where a parent uses false accusations to try for better custody or just to hurt the other person, etc.

He probably did it - but we'll never be sure. If the police refused to do anything, then she has no other choice but to take it into her own hands - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
several years ago a well known man in my small town was arrested and accused of molesting 2 14 yr old girls ,the girls who accused him used to ride on the school bus he drove,3 weeks later they came clean and said they were only trying to get back at him for being tough on them on the bus.needless to say it wrecked his life.Mud sticks.
I would gladly go to prison for murder if someone ever harmed one of my girls,but this made me think.these girls did a terrible thing because it can put doubt in peoples minds .I fully understand this woman and hope they prove the rape so she will be given a lighter sentence or freed ,but I think I would try the police first myself and then look out.

[Jeana (DP)]

But - will you just go kill him without even calling the police? Without even trying to get him jailed? If so - think about the Mc Martin preschool case, and Dale Akiki. Dale was a nice, wonderful man, weird looking, but dedicated to his children. He was arrested after a bunch of them made accusations that he was molesting them in the most horrible ways possible. Not just one child, several. Had you killed him based on that, you'd be wrong, you'd have killed an innocent man. The problem was a psychologist who lead the children, used hypnosis and several other techniques that generated false memories - with the best of intentions on his part, the childrens part, the parent's part, an innocent man was falsely accused, jailed, and tried. At trial, everything came apart - the stories were inconsistient, impossible, and denied by children in the same room as the supposed acts who were not 'helped' by that particular psychologist. Pretty much the same story for McMartin.

I know, all parents believe their children, believe these things happened, especially when more than one child says so, but even if it was only their child. But even without any malice, there can be horrible mistakes, and jumping the gun to go kill someone without even giving the police and the courts a chance is wrong. In this case, it sounds like she probably got the right person, but it isn't a good thing to let go. And sometimes there is malice - misidentifications because the child is too afraid of the molester to name them; divorce cases where a parent uses false accusations to try for better custody or just to hurt the other person, etc.

He probably did it - but we'll never be sure. If the police refused to do anything, then she has no other choice but to take it into her own hands - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.


Honestly, I can't answer that question. I guess it would depend on the circumstances and what I knew.

[Linda7NJ]

But - will you just go kill him without even calling the police? Without even trying to get him jailed? If so - think about the Mc Martin preschool case, and Dale Akiki. Dale was a nice, wonderful man, weird looking, but dedicated to his children. He was arrested after a bunch of them made accusations that he was molesting them in the most horrible ways possible. Not just one child, several. Had you killed him based on that, you'd be wrong, you'd have killed an innocent man. The problem was a psychologist who lead the children, used hypnosis and several other techniques that generated false memories - with the best of intentions on his part, the childrens part, the parent's part, an innocent man was falsely accused, jailed, and tried. At trial, everything came apart - the stories were inconsistient, impossible, and denied by children in the same room as the supposed acts who were not 'helped' by that particular psychologist. Pretty much the same story for McMartin.

I know, all parents believe their children, believe these things happened, especially when more than one child says so, but even if it was only their child. But even without any malice, there can be horrible mistakes, and jumping the gun to go kill someone without even giving the police and the courts a chance is wrong. In this case, it sounds like she probably got the right person, but it isn't a good thing to let go. And sometimes there is malice - misidentifications because the child is too afraid of the molester to name them; divorce cases where a parent uses false accusations to try for better custody or just to hurt the other person, etc.

He probably did it - but we'll never be sure. If the police refused to do anything, then she has no other choice but to take it into her own hands - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
That all happened because they called the police!;) LOL

If MY child came to me and told ME...there would be a dead perv.

[Details]

Honestly, I can't answer that question. I guess it would depend on the circumstances and what I knew.I'd be going to the police every time. Now, if they didn't act - then there would be trouble - but not before letting the police and the justice system handle it.

Also - the reports aren't being completely clear, but did this mother know for awhile before doing something? It was the son and the daughter, and it sounded ongoing. Her first response is to confront him (I wouldn't do that), and to kill him later because he laughed??? What was she planning to do if he apologized or denied it? Just let it go? You need to contact the police every time, even if they are apologetic, even if they say it will never happen again, even if they are never going to see your children again - because there are other children out there who don't deserve to be victimized until the parent finally reports this sicko to the police. And don't warn them before contacting the police, it just gives them time to get their story together, to get rid of incriminating evidence.

I don't think pedophiles have any rights to wander freely, but this mother's actions seem out of place to me. If you are going to kill him - kill him - don't confront him and only get mad because he doesn't respond like you wanted. But better still, report him to the police, and let them do their job. Don't put yourself and your children through all kinds of hell unless it's neccessary, unless the police fail.

[mysteriew]

You make some good points Details. But I don't know......I am pretty impulsive.
If my young kid came to me crying and told me about being raped, I don't know that I would be thinking rationally.

[Details]

You make some good points Details. But I don't know......I am pretty impulsive.
If my young kid came to me crying and told me about being raped, I don't know that I would be thinking rationally.You wouldn't be - none of us would be - but that's one more reason that a 3rd party - the law - is a necessity.

[Yeah,me]

How can we as parents trust the justice system after Jessica, Dylan and Shasta and other children that have been killed/raped by repeat offenders? I don't blame the woman for taking things into her own hands after the POS laughed in her face.

[Details]

How can we as parents trust the justice system after Jessica, Dylan and Shasta and other children that have been killed/raped by repeat offenders? I don't blame the woman for taking things into her own hands after the POS laughed in her face.How can we trust children after they have lied, ruined the lives of innocent men?

Repeat offenders is a problem that is being solved. Vigilante parents will make a lot of mistakes - a huge number of them, harming the children they were going to protect. There is no 100% perfect solution, and a lot has been learned in this very short period of time since child molestation began to be considered a crime not all that long ago.

What I really don't see though, is what this woman thought she was going to do if he hadn't laughed in her face. That's what gets me. Was she ready to just let it go if she got a contrite apology? What was she going to do next? Kill him no matter what? Let him off if he apologized? Or just giving him warning she was going to the police, and he should hide all of his child porn. That's where the laughed in her face bit makes me really wonder. Almost like that's more of an insult than molesting both of her kids!

[SadieMae]

How can we trust children after they have lied, ruined the lives of innocent men?

Repeat offenders is a problem that is being solved. Vigilante parents will make a lot of mistakes - a huge number of them, harming the children they were going to protect. There is no 100% perfect solution, and a lot has been learned in this very short period of time since child molestation began to be considered a crime not all that long ago.

What I really don't see though, is what this woman thought she was going to do if he hadn't laughed in her face. That's what gets me. Was she ready to just let it go if she got a contrite apology? What was she going to do next? Kill him no matter what? Let him off if he apologized? Or just giving him warning she was going to the police, and he should hide all of his child porn. That's where the laughed in her face bit makes me really wonder. Almost like that's more of an insult than molesting both of her kids!
If he was innocent, why did he laugh at her and ask her what she was going to do about it. Seems an innocent person would ask her what she was talking about, offer to go with her to the police for them to question her kids, ask to take a lie detector test. Why didn't he offer to do anything to show her he was innocent of the accusation?

[Details]

I remember the Akiki and McMartin preschool cases. At the start, it was beyond obvious they had done it - lots of kids, same type of story - no doubt. One kid's word should be believed, and when there were a bunch of them, why even bother with the trial! They were monsters, good thing they were in jail or someone would take them out.

Then the rest of the story came out - oops! They're innocent - factually, unquestionably. Still, some few people and some of the parents could not accept being so far wrong, and tried to ignore the evidence that proved the accused factually innocent. I can't imagine that their lives ever went back to normal, with those people and those few parents potentially able to turn up any time to kill them for something they never did.

Dale Akiki in particular I remember - at first it was part of the shocking story - a wonderful guy, long history of selfless giving at church and of his time to children, even when he himself had very little (poor guy was malformed, ugly and very weird looking) - how did he become, how did he hide for so long the child molestation and abuse? Then, when he was proven innocent - that very giving person was the one that had been falsely accused, had his life ruined for a psychologist's error.

Had Dale's 'victims' parents gone and killed him, instead of calling the police...

[Details]

If he was innocent, why did he laugh at her and ask her what she was going to do about it. Seems an innocent person would ask her what she was talking about, offer to go with her to the police for them to question her kids, ask to take a lie detector test. Why didn't he offer to do anything to show her he was innocent of the accusation?I can imagine several scenarios... but the point is, that laugh is not an admission of guilt. Wouldn't hold up in court, although the kids stories probably would.

Other hypothetical reasons for a laugh and attitude - he thought the accusation ridiculous and absurd; he just reacted out of shock at being accused of such a horrible thing; or perhaps she has a history we don't know about of making false accusations, scamming money.

He probably did do it. But still, the police should have been given first crack at him. If she'd done that, he'd be headed to jail for a long time, she'd be free and able to help her children recover. The 'laugh' thing is just so odd - why did that make a difference? A repentant pedophile or a contemptuous pedophile is still a pedophile. What he said could have made no difference at all.

[CyberLaw]

Michael Jackson would be in a grave if the mother of his "alleged" victim did what this women did to this "alleged criminal".

But Michael was found "innocent" in a court of law, even though I feel he was guilty.

But innocent or guilty would not factor into this scene. He would be murdered ragardless before a determination could be made on evidence, credability of the story, physical evidence, DNA, etc.

Has anyone every had anything that was said to them that was utterly fantastical and absurd. My first reaction would be to laugh, as I would never have done this.

What I find interesting: Both kids "claim" that this man abused them. A boy and a girl..........

Children do make up stories for whatever reason in their mind that they do so.

I have yet to read any physical finding that these children were harmed. I have only read that they told their version of the story in court. But there are always two sides to every story, but the other side is dead.

Maybe this women should have taken her children to a hospital for treatment and conclusive evidence before she shot this man.

[Amraann]

If someone harmed my child I would kill them PERIOD.


The flip side is that many mothers do not believe their children and these dirtballs roam free to harm others. Or courts minimize the damage and serve out laughable sentences.
A child molestor needs to never see the light of day again.

The fact is I would have absolutley no problem killing some dirtball who would harm a child. If it meant I went to prison myself then so be it.

If someone harmed my child they had better hope the police do get to them first.
I am not going to justify myself by debating the "right or wrong" of it
It just is.

[Gozgals]

If someone harmed my child I would kill them PERIOD.


The flip side is that many mothers do not believe their children and these dirtballs roam free to harm others. Or courts minimize the damage and serve out laughable sentences.
A child molestor needs to never see the light of day again.

The fact is I would have absolutley no problem killing some dirtball who would harm a child. If it meant I went to prison myself then so be it.

If someone harmed my child they had better hope the police do get to them first.
I am not going to justify myself by debating the "right or wrong" of it
It just is.
This debate could go on forever and......

As Jeana said: It would depend on the circumstances if the police were called, and to note a few innocent people in a crowd of bad apples is not saying much in our society today.

It took years for society to listen to our CHILDREN SPEAK UP. It is an outrage for parents to not LISTEN TO OUR CHILDREN SPEAK. Children normally do not lie when it comes to accusations as such in regard to rape, molestation, etc.

Always hear your children's thoughts. The research is out there. Many have come to the forefront of society now and are speaking up of the horrors they have endured as children while their family members stood by and let abuse happen, (especially their mothers). Note: I have not been a victim of sexual abuse but I did do some volunteer work at an abuse shelter and heard the screams of mothers when talking about the sexual abuse boyfriends, relatives did to their children.

It breaks ones heart what they must endure, the children and the parents that step up. The debate about the few innocents is usually not the concern of those that want to protect the child.

As many stated: It is the circumstances that allow the parent in charge to make the decision. I'm sure their is much more to this story.

I admire men like Mark Lunsford, J. Walsh,the women who lost children, and all the other advocates who were able to endure the heartache they were dealt and turn that around. These are personal decisions that one must make.

I forget the woman's name years ago whose son was about to testify against the molester when all the boys were scared, and when he was just ABOUT TO TESTIFY-- and put the scum away for abuse, he sneered at the child in court. She shot him and did prison time. Where was the justice then?

This is my opinion. Everyone is capable of making their own. *And I have known one person wrongly accused of molesting a child. Somehow, the system worked that out too.

Gozgals

[Details]

*And I have known one person wrongly accused of molesting a child. Somehow, the system worked that out too.

GozgalsHe'd be dead now by the rules several people here say they would follow. I do think his life is important - worth calling the police and acting only if they do not rather than just pulling a gun right off. Dale Akiki's life was important. And these aren't the only cases. I'd be ready to kill to protect my child too - who wouldn't? But death is permanent, and children can make mistakes - not the least of which is fingering the wrong person when they are too afraid of their molester to admit who actually did it. That has happened before too.

[Bobbisangel]

The mom evidentally knew the rapist. Don't know whether he was an ex-brother-law or what but he was family..sounds like on the little girl's father's side of the family. Someone had trusted him around the kids if he had been molesting the little boy for some time. The mother would know something about this guy. It would make matters even worse if he had always acted like a "real nice guy" and then mom found out he is a pervert.

If your daughter is raped you should be able to tell. She was probably bleeding because rape is different than touching. Mom may have checked her over or taken her to the doctor. Do we know if the police were ever contacted?

I think that the pervert laughing and asking the mom "what are YOU going to do about it" was the last straw. It was like telling her "ya, I raped your kid and there isn't a thing that you can do about it!" She showed him just what she could do about it. Can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing.

Until the lawmakers are willing to toughen up on violent sex offenders we are going to see more of this vigilante justice. People are sick and tired of Level 3's being let out of prison only to rape..molest..sodomize..murder. They are supposed to register but right now we have 16 Level 3's and 28 Level 2's running around...unregistered and LE/parole officers don't have a clue where
they are. These people are supposed to be supervised...excuse me while I die laughing :mad: The county that I live in isn't all that big. The system isn't working when it comes to keeping our children safe and I don't think the majority of the congressmen/senators give a darn. They are the ones who have to pass new laws about these sick perverts. We need to make them REAL AWARE that we expect more and that they are elected officials and can be replaced.

[SadieMae]

If someone harmed my child I would kill them PERIOD.


The flip side is that many mothers do not believe their children and these dirtballs roam free to harm others. Or courts minimize the damage and serve out laughable sentences.
A child molestor needs to never see the light of day again.

The fact is I would have absolutley no problem killing some dirtball who would harm a child. If it meant I went to prison myself then so be it.

If someone harmed my child they had better hope the police do get to them first.
I am not going to justify myself by debating the "right or wrong" of it
It just is.
If my child told me anything, I'm in tune enough to them to know when they are lying. A mother just knows that. You're right Amraann, some chose not to believe their kids, but that ain't me either, and like you he's a lucky SOB to have the cops pick him up before I get to him. When it comes to my kids I have no fear. I agree with Jeanna, I'll go as low as I need to. Don't have a problem doing that.

[tn_price]

http://www.volunteertv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4042058

Unfortunately they have found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Personally I hope at the sentencing they suspend the sentence.

[PaperDoll]

Cunningham now faces a sentence of 3 to 6 years in prison with the possibility of probation.

[Bobbisangel]

Cunningham now faces a sentence of 3 to 6 years in prison with the possibility of probation.


Well, a person usually serves 1/3 of their sentence so she will be out in no time. Well worth it....IMO. I'll bet she agrees too. One less pervert to damage children. Be great if all she got was probation though.

[CyberLaw]

So you wonder why all the criminals are out on the street and not in jail.

Let me see - they only serve 1/3 of their sentence which is 33% and then they are let go out of jail on the streets.

Gee I wonder why there are so many repeat criminals in the USA.........

[mysteriew]

A mother charged in the shooting death of a man she said raped her young daughter was sentenced to four years in prison today.

Authorities say Kimberly Cunningham must serve nearly a third of the sentence before being eligible for parole, The Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Her attorney Bruce Poston told Blount County Circuit Court Judge D. Kelly Thomas that he would appeal the sentence.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543706/posts

[KatherineQ]

I feel like there's another side to this story. (Maybe not, though, sometimes stories are beyond belief).

The prosecutor seems to be really going after the mother, which doesn't seem to happen in cases like this. Secondly, for one man to abuse BOTH a young boy AND a young girl is very unusual. VERY unusual.

I think there's more to this story than is being reported here in the media.

[Amraann]

4 years?? You raped my childand all I get is 4 years??

Bring it on! I would do it happily knowing that bastard was dead.

And with good behavoir? Could be out when? 2 years?

[mysteriew]

4 years?? You raped my childand all I get is 4 years??

Bring it on! I would do it happily knowing that bastard was dead.

And with good behavoir? Could be out when? 2 years?

Well, 4 years is 48 mos. With only serving 1/3 of that, hopefully she will be out in 16 mos. Looks like it would be worth it to me!
Though I still think they should have suspended the sentence on general principal.

[Amraann]

But - will you just go kill him without even calling the police? Without even trying to get him jailed? If so - think about the Mc Martin preschool case, and Dale Akiki. Dale was a nice, wonderful man, weird looking, but dedicated to his children. He was arrested after a bunch of them made accusations that he was molesting them in the most horrible ways possible. Not just one child, several. Had you killed him based on that, you'd be wrong, you'd have killed an innocent man. The problem was a psychologist who lead the children, used hypnosis and several other techniques that generated false memories - with the best of intentions on his part, the childrens part, the parent's part, an innocent man was falsely accused, jailed, and tried. At trial, everything came apart - the stories were inconsistient, impossible, and denied by children in the same room as the supposed acts who were not 'helped' by that particular psychologist. Pretty much the same story for McMartin.

I know, all parents believe their children, believe these things happened, especially when more than one child says so, but even if it was only their child. But even without any malice, there can be horrible mistakes, and jumping the gun to go kill someone without even giving the police and the courts a chance is wrong. In this case, it sounds like she probably got the right person, but it isn't a good thing to let go. And sometimes there is malice - misidentifications because the child is too afraid of the molester to name them; divorce cases where a parent uses false accusations to try for better custody or just to hurt the other person, etc.

He probably did it - but we'll never be sure. If the police refused to do anything, then she has no other choice but to take it into her own hands - but that doesn't seem to be the case here.
Details I wanted to say... I don't always believe my children.
I know when they lie ... They really are not good liars.
Would I call the police ?? NO
I would Kill the sorry bastard.
When my sister was 12 a 28 year old friend of my mothers had sex with her.
It was consentual according to him. SCUM Bag WTF??
How does a 12 YO consent? My mother blamed her..
So long story short... Even though the Police were called they did NOTHING!!
They said if my mother chose she could go to the DA..
Nice huh??
The dirt ball later married and had kids and to this day lives free.
Let me tell you I wish I had killed him because there is no doubt he still has "consentual" sex with 12 YO's


And while we are at it this is also why those girls that killed their skank whore drunken mother have my sympathy.
Apparently being drunk daily was not enough for DCF to remove my sister.
I will not presume that anyone readily helped them either.

[Warof2010]

That confuses me, too. Was second degree not offered as an option in the first trial?Even though they may have the right to try her again, on a lesser charge. If the dead dude, actually did say to the mother, what was testified to; the "What are you going to f---ing do about it", then they should find her "Not Guilty"--time for some of the idiots that are loose from the prison system, to recognize that we aren't going to accept their "tough" attitudes anymore. All we need to do is set a few good examples with these verdicts, and we can send out a pretty strong message.

Did you see the martial arts storekeeper guy who took out the robber the other night. Glad the robber only had a knife. That storekeeper has my vote--might he be prosecuted for using unnecessary, excessive force. If he would have ended up killing the robber, it would have been OK with me.

think I'll change my nick to VigilanteBuzz--I'm developing an attitude.

[Details]

Details I wanted to say... I don't always believe my children.
I know when they lie ... They really are not good liars.
Would I call the police ?? NO
I would Kill the sorry bastard.
When my sister was 12 a 28 year old friend of my mothers had sex with her.
It was consentual according to him. SCUM Bag WTF??
How does a 12 YO consent? My mother blamed her..
So long story short... Even though the Police were called they did NOTHING!!
They said if my mother chose she could go to the DA..
Nice huh??
The dirt ball later married and had kids and to this day lives free.
Let me tell you I wish I had killed him because there is no doubt he still has "consentual" sex with 12 YO's


And while we are at it this is also why those girls that killed their skank whore drunken mother have my sympathy.
Apparently being drunk daily was not enough for DCF to remove my sister.
I will not presume that anyone readily helped them either.I still say, call the police first. If they do nothing, it's different - then all you can do is act on your own. If they investigate, and disprove what your child said - thank goodness you didn't act first. This mother didn't call the police. She just killed him.

The parents in both of the cases I referred to believed their children, and the psychologist. They were wrong. They called the police, the police took it seriously - and found out the truth. Because they called the police, it all ended for the best - there was an investigation, the truth was found, and the innocent were protected - not killed.

[mysteriew]

The parents in both of the cases I referred to believed their children, and the psychologist. They were wrong. They called the police, the police took it seriously - and found out the truth. Because they called the police, it all ended for the best - there was an investigation, the truth was found, and the innocent were protected - not killed.

The question is, did they actually disprove the allegations. Child sex abuse is one of the hardest cases to prosecute because child witnesses are often seen as unreliable. Many times those cases are closed as 'not enough evidence to prosecute'. They may believe the child, but don't think they can prove the case in court.

[Details]

The question is, did they actually disprove the allegations. Child sex abuse is one of the hardest cases to prosecute because child witnesses are often seen as unreliable. Many times those cases are closed as 'not enough evidence to prosecute'. They may believe the child, but don't think they can prove the case in court.Yes, they disproved the allegations - completely. What the children said happened was flatly impossible. It was during that time where repressed memories were all the rage, and the therapist at the middle of the case basically used hypnosis with too much suggestion to get the kids to make up stories that they then believed. It was innocent on his side - he thought he was just helping them to remember something. But the stories were flat out impossible. These things happened, according to the kids, while parent volunteers and other adults were in the room where it supposedly happened, pet animals were killed (that are still alive today) in front of their eyes, young baby girls were raped that had no physical signs - etc. Children who were there and did not go to that therapist remembered none of this stuff that the stories said happened in front of everyone.

Yes, it was completely disproven. You can look up the McMartin preschool case, and the Dale Akiki case.

[mysteriew]

Yes, they disproved the allegations - completely. What the children said happened was flatly impossible. It was during that time where repressed memories were all the rage, and the therapist at the middle of the case basically used hypnosis with too much suggestion to get the kids to make up stories that they then believed. It was innocent on his side - he thought he was just helping them to remember something. But the stories were flat out impossible. These things happened, according to the kids, while parent volunteers and other adults were in the room where it supposedly happened, pet animals were killed (that are still alive today) in front of their eyes, young baby girls were raped that had no physical signs - etc. Children who were there and did not go to that therapist remembered none of this stuff that the stories said happened in front of everyone.

Yes, it was completely disproven. You can look up the McMartin preschool case, and the Dale Akiki case.

I have heard of the McMartin case. And it is true, those allegations were disproven. But there are also many cases where the prosectution believe the molestation/assault/rape occurred and LE was just unable to get enough evidence to prosecute. And those guys usually go on to assault another kid. They say that the average molester will assault 10 kids before they are caught. And then they may or may not get prosecuted.

[Details]

I have heard of the McMartin case. And it is true, those allegations were disproven. But there are also many cases where the prosectution believe the molestation/assault/rape occurred and LE was just unable to get enough evidence to prosecute. And those guys usually go on to assault another kid. They say that the average molester will assault 10 kids before they are caught. And then they may or may not get prosecuted.Quite true. But there are innocent people accused as well, and I can't see saying that a mother should just go ahead and kill them without even calling the police to let them try to do something, without proof positive. Too many innocent people would be killed, and not to even try LE is just wrong! Acting after LE fails to is a whole other matter, but deciding to jump to killing someone is what I am objecting to.

Dale Akiki was local to San Diego. He was a freakish looking guy, due to birth defects. Dedicated his life to children, probably in part because it wasn't like the world would accept him looking as he did. A real, genuinely great guy, helping out his church and people. He was accused, a lot of people believed it because of his appearance - and he was proven to be innocent (not just not guilty, not lack of evidence - it was another McMartin case). One wrong parent there, and this great guy who has had such a difficult life and still turned out so very giving would be dead now.