Discussion in 'Recently Sentenced and Beyond' started by nikb, Jul 7, 2013.
You're all okay for now, but don't get too far off track please.
Wasn't it on the John and Ken Show video where they interviewed Ragland first? That's KFI radio in Los Angeles.
As usual I agree with you. The only reason I have cut her any slack (personally) is because when I read what she said about her visions and that Terry was laying on his side and his eyes were closed. I believe she said it happened more than once. IIRC she went there thinking he would be alive. And I think that is why she allowed the kids to go with her. At least that is the reason I am using to not be really mad at her. jmo
btw. it still fascinates me when ever I hear about people that have that ability.
I read another article linked here that described it in even more detail and it was even worse. I nearly threw up reading the description, can't even imagine SEEING it. Made me feel awful for all of them, but especially the kids. It sounded to me like he's probably been there the whole time, not that I have any expertise in this area. I wonder if searchers left it alone or didn't question disturbed ground or maybe even dog hits if they thought it was an "animal graveyard" as others have described? Seems unlikely, but... maybe?
ETA: not trying to be cryptic, just trying to find it again - it was MSM. I won't quote it, but will link if I can find it again.
ETA2: here's the link: http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...uspect-in-Death-of-Terry-Smith-215246431.html
I'm not sure why I have to bump this again.
PSYCHIC DISCUSSION IS NOT ALLOWED ON WEBSLEUTHS.
In Terry's case, as a psychic has been reported as helping the investigation via LE and MSM, it may be discussed based on what is in the media only, as it relates to THIS case. That means, if it's in a MSM article, you can talk about it. That also means that you should not get distracted talking about the woman and her children, whether or not you believe in psychics in general, etc.
Please stay on topic here. Certainly there are more important things to discuss. Like Terry.
ETA: If you'd like to view our owner's stance on the issue - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Dreams and Visions
Hopefully we will have more to discuss tomorrow, as SA will be appearing in juvenile court.
I don't know yet what I think about the brother as far as how he should be charged. I think some kids can be a bad seed, and others can be very troubled based on what has happened in their lives. I haven't seen anything where anybody was describing him as a problem except Terry's dad. Has anybody read anything from neighbors or friends describing him? I think it's all so sad, and bad at the same time.
There's a reason IMO why minors are charged as such. There is scientific evidence proving that the cerebral cortex and higher reasoning skills associated with risk and consequences are not completely developed until after the age of 18. You can't hold someone psychologically accountable for something they can't consciously ascertain.
The whole thing is just a GIANT tragedy. Praying for this family.
I'm so confused. Was this a full brother, half brother or step brother to Terry? I was under the impression they were not blood related and he was a child of mom's spouse . That would make more sense if he did not grow up with Terry but only became acquainted with him in the last few years or so. tia
1/2 brother per Terry's father, who is the stepfather of the 16 year old.
This afternoon is when we will find out if the half brother will be charged as an adult or minor.
Half-Brother Accused Of Killing Menifee Boy Due In Court
MENFIEE (CBSLA.com) — The half-brother of an 11-year-old boy who was found buried in the family’s Riverside County backyard is scheduled to make his first court appearance Monday afternoon for a detention hearing.
SA was charged with murder Friday in the death of his brother, Terry Smith.
My understanding is that we still cannot use his name, he has not been charged as an ADULT yet.
A juvenile court judge will determine at a later date whether S should be charged as an adult, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Riverside County district attorney’s office.
I thought TOS said the names of minors can be used if they are in direct relation to the investigation? Where the TOS guide when we need it? Hehe Mod please!
"Websleuths.com™ does not allow the naming of, or photographs of, minors (children under the age of 18) on the Site unless the child is a missing or deceased person or where law enforcement has identified the minor as a perpetrator of a crime and the minor will be tried as an adult. If a missing child is found and it is learned that such minor was the victim of child exploitation, references to the child’s name and likeness will be removed, and further posting of such information will not be allowed.
By using the Site, you warrant to Websleuths.com™ that you understand if Websleuths.com™ has reason to believe that you are engaged in any illegal activity related to child exploitation, you membership will immediately be terminated."
Hope this helps!
Here is what I don't understand:
So this woman intuites (or whatever) that she knows where Terry Jr is and she takes her kids with (unforgiveable after what they found IMO) at 1:30am to go look.
Did she just walk into their backyard and look for herself and then call LE?
Or did LE go with her?
I am shocked if she just took it upon herself to be walking around someone's yard at 1:30am.
And the kids with her... to me, putting them in a position to see what they saw is irresponsible (at best) and possibly abusive. What was she thinking???
He's still in juvenile court. We don't yet know if he will be tried as an adult.
So for now, still no name. You can use "SA" or "half-brother" or "perp".
I believe the brother will be charged as an adult per California law. http://www.losangelesjuveniledefense.com/trying-juveniles-as-adults-in-southern-california/
They will determine this afternoon whether he is fit to be tried as an adult and IMO, they will find he is (he understands the process, is not too young to know what's going on, etc.).
I'm not sure how I feel about juveniles being tried as adults. Under 14 I am definitely against. Over, I guess it depends on the callousness, the history of the perp and if there is cruelty or sadism involved in the crime.
I guess for me, it is complex and not black and white. I agree totally that the brains of teenagers have not developed as adults so that must be considered, but I do not view things like this as "double tragedies", I don't feel sorrow for the perp and I don't think what such perps do is simply a product of their age and immaturity.
I think people of almost every age past infancy/toddlerhood have the capacity for good or evil and have the ability to make decisions and understand right from wrong, as long as they are not intellectually disabled or mentally ill. I do not think the fact of their age propels them to do something bad or prevents them from being able to control themselves, even though they are more impulsive when young.
At the same time, I think minors have a greater capacity for change and rehabilitation than many adults. Their brains are more malleable and even those with evil in their hearts or sociopathic tendencies may be more amenable to change and more treatable, IMO. Thus, I can't agree with throwing away the key in most cases. Kids can do some pretty horrible things they later would never do, after maturity and experience allow for greater understanding. But they also still have choices at a young age.
So, I'm on the fence about the juvenile as adult thing.
Yeah it seems like by 16 kids should have it figured out and tried as an adult, but then we would have to also consider all the other legal and social repercussions of doing do.
Deeming a 16 year old as an adult or intellectually capable as an adult would also allow for 16 year olds to be considered of legal age for consentual sex, abortion without adult supervision, and the inevitability of crimes perpetrated on 16 year old to not be considered child endangerment or child abuse.
I agree it's all so dicey.
It is dicey but I'm not saying that by 16 they should have it all figured out or that all teens 16 and over should be tried as adults. My 20 year old brother-in-law can barely wipe his behind. I don't think 16 year olds are adults at all.
But for me, it's a case by case basis. For example let's say a 16 year old murders someone and then goes and gets hamburgers afterwards, sleeps well, laughs about the crime. Let's say there was a ton of planning involved. Let's say that 16 year old already has a pretty long rap sheet. I think trying that kid as an adult makes some sense. I don't know that that kid has any chance at rehabilitation. Now it becomes about protecting society rather than the kid.
BTW, ballots requiring parental notification of abortions have been rejected by voters in California three, separate times. And trying teens as adults would not change child abuse laws. Being able to try a teen as an adult simply determines that a minor may be treated as an adult in certain, limited, specific circumstances. It doesn't change the age when someone is still a minor.
I don't think kids should be tried as adults...ever.
I think laws can and should be changed to add more jail time or rehab to children convicted of murder.
I have a horrible feeling we will find out this kid is on all types of prescription medication too. I just think the add, ADHD, bi polar, anxiety meds out there do more harm than good if thrown at "behaviors" and not real chemical imbalance...but that's another thread.