And myself, I originally thought that people are jumping to conclusions prematurely and felt that all evidence they had at the time was weak if they couldn’t find the body. Once they did I UPDATED the post, as you can see, saying I was wrong and clarifying my position.

Your reply to Kevin was to call him a “kook” and misrepresenting what he said (that murderers can go free). That’s not much of a rebuttal. It’s just a stupid ad hominem.

And your “rebuttal” of me was complete misrepresentation, as if I was advocating freedom to take another’s life or that killers should go free. You’re not refuting me there, but your own image of me based on what I never said.

As for “eye for an eye”, alright, I guess you’re not advocating that, which is good. I don’t advocate punishment either, but reparations, as Kevin described it. Justice isn’t about revenge (which is what punishment is), but about repairing the damage as far as it can be repaired.

Regards

Or, you can continue to put words in my mouth and call me “sad” and “pathetic”.

In my book, people who have crushes on murderers are sad and pathetic.

Nobody here defended murder? Let’s see:

Andrew Theo Says:

“Yes, I see : Hans did it.
But what jury in this or the other world could judge him ??
I mean, the women took his money, his children, his company, his life work, his dignity.
Who can realy put a blame on this man ?
I do not….and, maybe neither should you : look inside you, and try to put yourselves in his shoes.”

As far as your nonsense about “eye for an eye”, an “eye for an eye” in this case would have been a sentence of death by strangulation. Clearly, that didn’t happen. As a matter of fact, the murderer has a chance to leave prison if he lives long enough! Clearly not “eye for an eye”.

On the contrary, people here seem to be advocating the extreme opposite of an eye for an eye, which is that murderers should go free.

Disagree with anything I’ve said? Please let me know.

Nobody here defended murder. At the time this entry and many of subsequent comments were written it was NOT clear if it was a murder or not, as evidence was NOT yet conclusive, yet people were jumping to conclusions. This isn’t some sort of a betting game where you get to bet on one or the other outcome and then get paid in gloating rights. That’s pathetic. That you’re so quick to assume people here supported no sanctions for murder says more about you than them.

Also, regarding your put down of Kevin’s voluntaryism, it appears you are one of those who believe in “eye for an eye”, perpetual escalation of violence as the solution to violence. Nothing can bring back life, that’s for sure, but killing someone back and even life in prison wont do it either. It would indeed be nice if the murderer was thus offered an option to make it up to the family of the lost one as much as humanly possible (paying huge reparations) instead of costing tax payers, completely innocent people, for holding him and feeding him in some dumb jail cell.

Cheers

Thanks!

“I expected better from a Free Software community, all so adamant in promoting their cause and supposedly “freedom”.”

You’re misunderstanding what “freedom” means.

“Freedom” doesn’t include the “freedom” to take another’s life.

The small fringe minority among the “free software community” who put forth silly notions like these are doing themselves and the community a tremendous disservice.

When you say that killers should go “free”, how do you expect anyone to take anything that you say seriously?

“He was convicted because both the Judge and the Jurors were jews. What outcome would you expect for clearly anti-hebrew type?”

You’re delusional.

First of all, I don’t know about Judge Goodman, but having attended part of the trial, I can tell you that the members of the jury were not “Jews”.

Second, he was convicted because *he killed his wife*.

“This isn’t about murder, it’s about a group of people imposing their worldview on other human beings. One person sending a a man to jail would be called “tyrrany”. It doesn’t matter if it’s one man or one million. For all the people who stupidly subscribe to the idea of “democracy” a group of 12 men does NOT suddenly gain the ability to deprive a sovereign man of his life, liberty or property. The disgust that “people” think it’s acceptable to deprive human beings of rights because some majority agrees is the issue.”

You’re a kook. I hope in the year-plus since you’ve written this, you’ve gotten the mental health care that you so clearly require.

The position that it’s unreasonable to “deprive” murderers of their “liberty” is absurd.

I find it hard to believe that if someone close to you was murdered, you’d be standing up in court asking that the killer be “ostracized” rather than imprisoned.

Thanks for introducing me to the ridiculous concept of “voluntarism”. It’s a laugh riot!

“But what jury in this or the other world could judge him ??”

Um… any jury composed of 12 relatively rational individuals.

“I mean, the women took his money, his children, his company, his life work, his dignity.”

No, she didn’t. She didn’t take any of his money. It was testified in court that “not one penny” could be identified as being inappropriately obtained by the victim.

“Who can realy put a blame on this man ?”

Any person who thinks that taking another’s life is wrong.

“I do not….”

That’s probably due to some mental disorder.

“Hans is not a killer,”

Yes, he is. He killed a person. That makes him a killer, by definition.

“…he was a good father, ”

No, he wasn’t. He was a father who didn’t pay his child support, and tried to refuse medical care that several doctors agreed that his children needed. Further, he deprived his children of both of their parents. Hard to imagine a worse parent.

“…a good profesional,”

No, he wasn’t. By all accounts, he was a failure as a businessman, didn’t work well with others, and produced a shoddy, bug riddled product.

“he acted probably in a moment of passion”

You have no way of knowing that.

“…so, I think in 5 year he should be out from the prison.”
“It is just an opinion…”

You’re an idiot. Just an opinion.

Also, you should learn to spell. Your spelling is atrocious.

If you think eye for an eye is justice you’d probably be cripple by now, as would everyone else in the world. Killing the murderer is nothing, but just another murder and does nothing whatsoever to repair the damage nor console those who lost someone.

Wake up, dummies (yeah including the OP who assumed Reiser’s innocence with very limited info to begin with. Like you sitting behind a computer screen think you’re so much smarter than prosecuters working on this case day and night). Reiser should have been electrocuted.