What do we do with this piece of shit?
 

Assuming he is proven guilty, what should happen to him, even though nobody has died, yet...

<a href="http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/topstory/1399694">Luke J. Helder</a>

<img src="http://www.chron.com/content/news/photos/02/05/07/helder3.jpg">

Domestic terrorist, stupid, yes, but what the fuck! If guilty, fry this bastard! I want him dead!

Flame on...

re: What do we do with this piece of shit?
 

Mmmmm... get him a new tie and a better haircut to start with. Sheesh. There's just no excuse for looking like that.

Here is my knee. Watch it jerk.

Fat Bastard!
 

- 03#

you know what?
 

in the grand scheme of things, this guy is just a little misguided. i really don't think frying him is going to help. as a matter of fact, i think about 5 years in the slammer and someone to talk to about his problems will be quite enough to set him straight.

what's most sad about this whole thing is the mob mentality. i disagree with the whole media onslaught over this. i think that car chases should not be broadcast nationwide, not because it might encourage others to do the same, but because it's sensational. it's taking real life and making it entertainment, which just seems wrong (and yes, the real world is wrong, but for a slightly different reason).

i was saddened when i went to his band (apathy)'s web page yesterday, and massive amounts of people, without proof of guilt, were disparaging this guy, who might not even have been the same guy alleged by the FBI... the hate spewing from these people was unimaginable. and more than that it was righteous, and inflammatory. and righteousness is gross. inflammatory is just stupid.

so basically i'm saying that it seems like there's alot of stupid, ignorant people out there, and maybe i'm one of them, but isn't it nice to point the finger at other people and say ha ha, or 'you stupid person, i hope you die for what you did/said/thought,' or 'you're the reason everything is wrong with our community/country/society'? We all need to take responsibility for ourselves and our own actions and watch and listen to the rest of the world, but keep our pie-holes shut until we have something contructive to say...

or something...

The problem is that we are emotional beings. NBN lets emotion, not logic, guide his thought. He's not alone.

In fact, I would contend that whoever is leaving these bombs is acting without logic but with emotion. They are upset at the current state of affairs and want to force a change. But they're going about it in a manner which is irrational.

Sort of how NBN started this thread. Already labeling him a "piece of shit" without knowing whether or not he is guilty of anything. He may very well be, but he may not be as well. I doubt that NBN has any inside information on this (like the Director of the CIA would), but he is perfectly happy and willing to assume that the accused is guilty. That's rather disappointing, but not surprising - NBN has always acted emotionally instead of logically and rationally, and we shouldn't expect anything better from him. It's typical.

Jail time, mental help.

Personally, I agree with you, if it is found that he is guilty of what he stands accused of.

I have done a 180 on the death penalty though. Whereas a year ago I was furious over Timothy McVeigh's execution being delayed a month, I no longer believe that we should be killing prisoners. It was Timothy McVeigh that changed that in me.

If this helps at all, one report said that it sounds like schizophrenia. This illness most commonly strikes between age 16-25, and more likely men than women in that age group.

Welcome to adulthood, and to the human race.

That may sound obnoxious, but it's heart-felt sincerity. I am genuinely happy for you.

X.

If nobody has died yet, it wasn't because he wasn't trying. Suppose you were going out to get your mail, the mailbox blows up, causing you to lose a perfectly good eye?

Would you feel any compassion for this asshole?

dham', if you want a poster boy against the death penalty, you could choose somebody better than Timothy McVeigh.

Have you already forgotten the Death Row guy I thought was getting fucked over?

Sheesh...

p.s.: he has confessed to the crimes

As I'm sure you know, I'm uniquely qualified to comment on losing an eye.

It's still not a death-worthy offense.

Period.

If you want to argue it, let some one shoot you in the face with a high-powered BB rifle, give yourself seven years to settle down, and then we'll talk about it.

Timothy McVeigh is exactly the example I want. Besides the fact that it was he who changed my view of the death penalty, he is a good example - simply because he killed so many. Surely everyone would agree that if there was ever anyone that deserved it, it was him. But he did it for a reason, to make a point - and that is, who is right to decide who lives and who dies? Who is qualified to make that choice? How can we deem it "okay" for the government to take life but say it's wrong for citizens to do so? Who makes the deicision as to which murderer should receive the death penalty? Imperfect human beings are choosing whether or not a life should be terminated. There's too much risk and <b>emotion</b> to be able to make logical and rational decisions.

You are largely ignorant of the circumstances surrounding the mailbox bombings. So am I. Neither of us is qualified to make a choice as to whether or not he's an "asshole", whether or not he deserves to die, etc. We simply do not have the information to make such a choice, and you very simply do not have the ability to make decisions unemotionally, as you have demonstrated in the past and demonstrate now.

How can you say that he was trying to kill? How can you be certain what his intentions were? It's entirely possible that he made low-powered explosives for the express purpose of <b>not</b> killing but still gaining attention. This is exactly my point - you specifically, and a large portion of the American public, are willing to jump to conclusions without bothering to examine the situation and the evidence. You eagerly swallow down whatever is being fed to you and then ask for more.

All Indians, No Chiefs.

But you're too forgiving of the bastard, Dham!
 

That was exactly the point I was trying to make. If you lost your other eye, you would be totally blind. And pissed off!

Why, because it happened for no reason. Believe it or not, I can understand the 9/11 terrorists crashing into the Pentagon. That was a truly legitimate military target. But when you go fucking with heartland Americans (or those poor souls in the WTC, or Tel-Aviv, for that matter) for no other reason but terror, you've lost me, pal!

Not to be patronizing, but when you turn 40 and have seen a little more of the world, you will understand better...

Re: But you're too forgiving of the bastard, Dham!
 

"The older I grow the more I distrust the familiar doctrine that age brings wisdom."
-- H.L. Mencken

Age brings dogma, and unchanging opinions. If you've believed that XYZ is wrong for 15 years, you aren't going to change your opinion now, even if you are 'proven' wrong.

"A fanatic is someone who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
-- Winston Churchill

Besides, if you invoke age as the arbiter of issues, Maggie's opinion will count more than yours, anyway. Let's hear it..

X.

What I thought was particulary funny was that when he was first pulled over, he said to the police officer "I didn't mean to hurt anyone". To which the police officer replied, "That's great -- but I pulled you over for speeding".

Doh!

Re: But you're too forgiving of the bastard, Dham!
 

But I <b>didn't</b> lose my other eye and I'm not totally blind. And if I were, I would have more important things to do than be pissed off. Maybe you can't understand it because you haven't been submitted to it. After being really bummed out for about a year, I realized "hey, I'm not going to let that jackass ruin my life", and I <b>did something about it</b>. Being pissed off doesn't help me cope and is counter-productive - it steals my focus from adapting to my changed life.

Not to be patronizing, but you're an assuming ignoramus. The fact of the matter is that you only have a foggy idea of what I've gone through and what I have seen. You know about my eye, but you cannot understand it until it has happened to you. That's where your knowledge of my life and its trials and tribulations ends.

I will have certainly seen more when I am 40; I cannot argue that, and I agree with that. But I take issue with your assertion that I will "understand better". What you are saying is that when I turn 40, I will appreciate your point of view more. Very simply, I believe you are incorrect. Neither one of us can say what is in store for me in 20 years, but I certainly can tell you that I have arrived at my views from a lot of experience and from watching the world around me, and that the more I see, the more I feel them to be accurate. You are on a far end of a spectrum and I am on another. You have been steadily moving away from me and I have been moving away from you even more quickly. It is my contention that our ideals will never meet again; whereas I used to be where you are, I have no desire to go there again. It is flawed logic at best.

Timothy McVeigh's act was upon a federal building which he thought would be filled with government workers. In this respect, he was ignorant. The same ignorance ran rampant through the government during the Waco standoff, and whether or not they set the fires themselves, the end result was that upwards of 80 people ended up dead for no good reason. In the end, Timothy McVeigh played executioner the same as the government did and he was, in turn, killed for it. Where does the cycle end? Who can we say is "in the right"? Should he who pushed the button and started the poison flowing be executed? Why not? Because the government said it was okay? What if the government is an outdated institution? Who says their decision making capabilities are better than Timothy McVeigh's as far as who should die and who should not? Do we elect politicians to make those decisions? Are emotional human beings really capable of handling the responsibility of deciding one's fate?

What if a mistake was made, as was in the case of your buddy with child support?

What if Luke Helder is insane? What if he has schizophrenia and cannot control what's going on? Should we still steal his life for something he cannot understand he did?

What if we had the death penalty for deliberately assaulting someone? What if <b>you</b> were wrongly convicted of assault after you tried to defend yourself from an attacker? What if you were sentenced to die for that? Would you still support the death penalty for just "hurting" someone?

Of course you wouldn't, because that's <b>ridiculous</b>, and because you would <b>know</b> what was going on with you when it happened.

And that's just my point - you are not <b>capable</b> of knowing everything in connection with this case, so you cannot responsibly decide that he should die for his crimes. Your decision was based on emotion, not logic.

Contrary to what you may think, you're not omniscient.

Just a note, Maryland suspended their death penalty: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._death_penalty

-Kris

Um, because he said so?

"I'm here to help you realize/ understand that you will live no matter what! It is up to you people to open your hearts and minds. There is no such thing as death. The people I've dismissed from this reality are not at all dead."

According to what he says, he belives that death is an illusion...and he's on a mission to demonstrate it for us. Latest word is that the reason his bombings were laid out in circles is that he was trying to draw a smiley face on the map...darn; ya can't make stuff like this up.

Of course, to try to follow this "logic", it would appear that he didn't believe that killing doesn't actually result in death. Arguing about his "intentions" looks like it's going to be a pretty tricky business.

I can think of several opinions I held for a lot longer than 15 years and then changed. Dogma is *far* from the exclusive province of the old...younger folk can be every bit as dogmatic. That's why there''s the joke: "Hire a teenager, while he still knows everything".
Thanks too much.

OK: I think the kid is a nutball, and I think he's quite likely to be found legally insane at or before trial. As abused as the insanity defense is these days, I think we may very well have a bonafide case of it here. I can't see how serves any good purpose to execute him if that's the case.

I'm guessing even the prosecution experts will end up calling him legally insane...if not, we may have to let the defense and prosecution do "battle of the expert witesses" and let a judge or jury make the call.

From Luke's Band's website, before Angelfire took it down:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke....Guitar..

About me.

I'm a huge Nirvana fan. I really am quite infatuated with this band. I know everything about Kurt....try me, hahaha. Well, the top things I care about are my girlfriend Sarah, and my music/band. I go to college at Stout in Menomonie Wisconson. My major is Industrial Design. I party, play guitar, and talk online to everyone. That's my life. I searched like mad, and hoped to get a band at Stout and it never really worked. Drummers were impossible. So I had nine months to simply play guitar, and while doing so wrote like twenty songs....(no clue how many for sure). Even at home drummers seemed scarce...but finally i was hooked up with Mike. And the person who actually taught me how to play guitar, Eric, ended up playing bass for me. The summer is ariving and everything is going fine. After like six practiced we got lucky enough to play a show. We actually put together a completly original set..which was fun, and Eric, had played bass for like two weeks....but fooled people into saying to me, "wow, I didn't know Eric was that good at bass," hahaha, idunno, that's fine though. The show went smoothly for the most part. I had a tad nerve problem, which resulted in "rushed luke" problems...but it's all fine and dandy.

As a music fan I've attended many of the shows in Mantorville, PlaMoore, Fairs , yada yada...etc. Every sow that I have attened has had one thing in common, most bands are boring as hell to watch. I always told myself that when I get my band together that I would actually perform a show. This is why it's called a SHOW, you perform. Having fun while perfoming is surely of greatest concern, and if a performer is having a blast, then the audience can get into it too. So I always attempt to be very animated, and choke Eric, and Crate Boy if they aren't ;)...It's all good though. I don't mean to come off all bitter or anything...it's just a pet peave..haha.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Holy Shit, this guy sounds like me!
 

Except for the music part :)

He may be deluded, but he's not insane, a least by legal definition. He knew exactly what he was doing.

He wanted to hurt, perhaps kill, people at random. In my perspective, that's at least as bad as what McVeigh did. And I'm not unhappy he got the needle!

Thank you, Dr. Net. Your psychological evaluation was stunning. My eyes are certainly opened. May I call you Jesus Christ?

Thank you 'dham, for setting me straight
 

How did I get so far up your ass?

I admit, I was emotional before, but if you're willing to forgive blindness then who am I to say otherwise?

Let the guy do community service instead, say, clearing minefields in Afghanistan or Kosovo?

There's a poetic justice in that!

Re: Holy Shit, this guy sounds like me!
 

Well I was thinking that he sounds like several people I've heard on the Cellar, but left that conclusion for others to draw, lest I seem "mean" or "condescending".
That's an oversimplified view of the actual legal situation.

"The modern history of the insanity defense begins in England in 1843, however, when Daniel MacNaughton tried to assassinate Prime Minister Peel, but mistakenly killed Peel's secretary instead. MacNaughton suffered from paranoid delusions and believed that Peel's party, the Tories, were conspiring to kill him. At his trail he was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

"In response to pubic and official outcry about the verdict, the House of Lords was asked to define the test for when a person suffering from a mental disorder should be excused from responsibility for criminal conduct.

"The Lords...devised the test that bears MacNaughton's name, which says that the defendant is not responsible if, at the time of the crime as a result of mental disease, the defendant either did not know what he was doing or did not know that what he was doing was wrong."
http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/featur...597/morse.html


Obviously he knew what he was doing. But did he know it was wrong? He repeatedly stated a belief that killing someone doesn't cause them to actually die. It may be enough to prove that he knew it was against the law, though.

MacNaughton is the standard in Pennsylvania, and many other states. In the rest, the standard is "incapable of forming criminal intent *OR* incapable of conforming his behavior to the requirements of the law."; not quite the same thing. It's kind of a crapshoot; what is the prevailing standard in each of the states? And then there are Federal charges too.