Arizona police allege that four people abducted a woman and used a branding iron to write "SNITCH" on her face. The woman had reportedly sicced family services on two of the suspects -- in February 2006.
Mega-Hat-Tip to eephus!
« Will Jackson County jurors hear Devlin case? | Main | Motorcycle deaths set a record last year in MO, KS »
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b1b869e200e008c9eecd8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Woman abducted, branded over 16-month grudge, police say:
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
She paid an aweful price for doing(obviously) the right thing. These people should not be raising kids
Posted by: searching | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 07:58 AM
that'll leave a mark.
Posted by: onetime | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 08:48 AM
Didn't we just have a debate about why people in crummy neighborhoods don't call the cops?
Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 09:02 AM
ahhh inbred white trash in all its glory. i wonder who's making the payments on their trailer and z-28 camaro while they are in jail?
Posted by: nomas | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:22 AM
They probably spelled it wrong, too.
Posted by: Kerri | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:34 AM
What? No comments from Jewwells about profiling white guys with tattoos and wife-beaters for their propensity to brand snitches?
Posted by: Marvin | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 11:29 AM
But they didn't look like white trash...obviously joking.
Posted by: Jo-din | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 11:50 AM
"ahhh inbred white trash in all its glory"
FYI, the term 'white trash' is on par with the n word. Go to dictionary.com and look it up.
Posted by: KC Brougham | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Maybe branding these thugs with the word SCUM would be approprate here. Do it in public, and do it to each of them. Maybe if we quit coddeling and start punishing there will be a reverse of this thug mentality.
Posted by: Grumpy | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 12:21 PM
I'm 90% sure they stole the idea from a Harry Potter book. Kudos for that, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to deduct points for a lack of creativity.
Posted by: JCK | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 12:55 PM
KC Brougham: If the two terms are on par, why did you write out one and not the other?
Posted by: some random guy | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 01:03 PM
good point random
Posted by: searching | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 01:04 PM
Can you imagine how much that had to hurt??? Poor woman... And here all she was doing was trying to protect the children.
I hope some kind plastic surgeon offers his services free of charge to correct the damage they have inflicted.
Posted by: me | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 01:45 PM
This is one of those times when we should do what is in the bible.....You know, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. These #&%*@%'s need to be layed on their backs in front of the Courthouse and branded with the work "D U M B" across their foreheads.
Posted by: OLE MO/KY ALLEN | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Dude... a z-28!! Sweeet! Lucky B@stards!
Posted by: sloppy | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 03:20 PM
"KC Brougham: If the two terms are on par, why did you write out one and not the other?"
some random guy and his sidekick:
For the same reason Snoop Dogg can use the n word and Don Imus can't.
Posted by: KC Brougham | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 03:46 PM
I want to clear up a misconception, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is what god promises will be the punishment, not what we are supposed to do. People are always misquoting that.
Posted by: searching | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 04:20 PM
Perhaps you mis-interpreted ALLEN's post. He was correct that it is in the bible.
Posted by: KC Brougham | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 05:13 PM
This is an example of pure genius: the victim obviously 1. Can positively identify the assailants and 2. Has a propensity to notify the police. The only surprise here is that they let her go. I guess, however, in certain circles being a snitch is worse than being dead. Absolutely crazy.
Posted by: eneal | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:31 PM
The suggestion that we brand the assailants is an error in logic. Consider this: We say that a culture of thug mentality led these people to commit this terrible crime. Would it not take our justice system into the thug realm if we cruelly punish the assailants? Tit for tat is not justice, it is revenge.
Posted by: eneal | Friday, June 22, 2007 at 10:41 PM
So what is justice? Time in jail with free meals, a law library, free health care? I say no, they have ruined this womans face for life...why not return the favor? I would brand CONVICT on their faces. Its tree huggers like you that are ruining this country. I like the justice system in China, swift and sure. You mess up, you pay a price. The chinese dont play around.
Posted by: Old Crank | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 07:16 AM
with the eye for an eye mentality sooner or later we'll all be blind.
it's facists like those who hate tree huggers that are ruining this country.
Posted by: geezzz... | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 07:42 AM
I am not suggesting that we should simply say "shame on you" and go without punishment. Somewhere in-between is where justice lies. Freedom from cruel and unusual punishment is one of the ideals that our country was founded upon. If you are such a fan of the way of life in China, then perhaps you should go live there. They have a wonderful history of treating their citizens fairly and humanely.
To call me a tree hugger is also a miscalculation. What I am talking about here is more of a libertarian point of view.
Posted by: eneal | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 08:29 AM
im sure meth wasnt involved.....
Posted by: derric | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Thank about this, we put a dog to sleep for bitting a person because we don't want that same dog bitting another person.
Im not saying put the person down, but take a bite out of his a55
Posted by: PLEASE SIGN YOUR COMMENTS! | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:27 AM
That's it...anonymous name-calling (wuss)...very persusive.
The alleged abductors are just plain stupid (and evil). We need serious reevaluation of our privacy laws so we can ferret-out the evil people and PREVENT more crimes.
Kerri, loved your early post! (you are "aweful" funny)
Posted by: Quad Kings | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 11:36 AM
ANEAL..........IF YOU TRULY BELIEVED IN THE BIBLE, YOU WOULD NOT MAKE THAT COMMENT
Posted by: OLE MO/KY ALLEN | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 02:26 PM
Quad Kings: I went ahead and deleted the anonymous name-caller.
Posted by: James Hart | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 05:03 PM
Quad Kings: As far as re-evaluation of the privacy laws, uh, what did you have in mind?
Posted by: KC Brougham | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 06:00 PM
Hey James, exactly robots have actually had posting on this site?
Posted by: KC Brougham | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 06:01 PM
ALL WE NEED TO DO A PEOPLE IS PRAY AND EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT god KNOWS whats best let him handle it
Posted by: pam young | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 06:06 PM
TRUST IN THE LORD WITH ALL THY HEART LEAN NOT UNTO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING IN ALL THY WAYS ACKNOWLEDGE HIM AND HE WILL DIRECT YOUR PATH
Posted by: PAM young | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 06:09 PM
KC B, The so-called privacy protection laws are so tight that no one can (legally) find out anything about anyone without their permission. Criminal history, mental health (or lack thereof), rotten credit, name changes, etc. These are all things we ought to know. And the people who have something to hide bask in anonymity...until they snatch an 18 year-old from a Target parking lot or brand "SNITCH" into a woman's face.
Posted by: Quad Kings | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 10:34 PM
That will teach her! .................. unbeleivable what people will do now a days
Posted by: TC | Saturday, June 23, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Criminal history is legally obtainable, name changes can be found through the county records office such as the one on 12th St. Most of this stuff can be found on the internet. Anyone can go through Chicago Title to find out who owns any piece of property.
Lets say you have Edwin Hall's complete history, everything. How exactly would that have served to prevent what he did to Kelsey Smith?
Again, how would having all this information prevent a spontaneous criminal act such as the lady having 'snitch' branded on her forehead?
Posted by: KC Brougham | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 12:02 AM
This test is used to prevent automated robots from posting comments.
Yo James! How many robots have actually posted on this site. Is this absolutely necessary or is it a form of arbitrary harrassment?
Posted by: KC Brougham | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 12:04 AM
KC Brougham: I've made several comments about this in the Open Thread, including yesterday night. I'm not any happier than you are, and it's not something that I have much control over. I'm not singling you out for "arbitrary harassment."
I've set our blog's setting for commenter verification as low as they can be set, but Typepad has spam safeguards they apply to all their sites, apparently. I've contacted them, and they say there's nothing they can do. (Some of the alternatives I have -- such as requiring TypeKey accounts for all posters -- would be worse than the original problem.)
And believe it or not, we still get spam, I cleaned out a dozen fake posts just today.
The goal is to eventually switch the blog to a different platform -- but that's something I have to run up the chain of command, and it's going to take time.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience. I appreciate the time you take to read and write here -- and I'm not all happy that you're having a bad time.
Posted by: James Hart | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 12:30 AM
KCB, My point is that you shine a light and the cockroaches run. Expose the nut-jobs and we'll have a better chance of preventing SOME crimes. By the way, if you get someone's criminal history or credit history without their permission, they can sue you.
(Thanks James)
Posted by: Quad Kings | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 08:15 AM
Hey peace necks (eneal)
What EXACTLY is justive in this case? Don't paint a rosy sky broad picture, tell me specificly how justice is served? This woman will carry those scars for the rest of her life. OK here is a suggestion- you dont want an eye for an eye? How about when the scars heal to her previouis condition they can get out of jail? Would that be ok with you? Would you feel guilty for violating their feelings? Not letting them get out and harm others?
And Geez, you lip off like all arrogant liberals, so I am asking you directly- what is justice in this case? And what would you want if that was your mother that had Bitc* branded on her face? Maybe have them over for thanksgiving on parole day?
I want to hear your answers, and I want you to refran from talking down to me, I want you to prove to me you have all the answers and are going to provide a solution here, what is justice in this case? And why?
And what is wrong with punishment? Do you ever punish your children? Why or wny not?
Lets see if you can back up your arrogance with some logic and reason...what ya got boy?
Posted by: Old Crank | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 08:50 AM
I don't agree with branding anyone in anyway, and I believe they should be punished, but I'm curious, did it anywhere say what the child protective call was about, and was the family guilty, or was the call dismissed?
Posted by: kaye | Sunday, June 24, 2007 at 09:23 AM
Old Crank,
Who is eneal? And do you mean "peace-nicks"? You often have good points on this blog (accountability, etc.), but this post is a bit of a rant. What's your point? I don't think anyone thinks there should not be punishment.
Posted by: Quad Kings | Monday, June 25, 2007 at 07:21 AM