Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2024/04/20/indiana-republican-who-won-primary-election-while-facing-murder-charge-is-convicted-of-manslaughter.html
…
10 Likes
As long as a candidate promise to hurt the right people, Republicans will vote for him. I have no doubt that the crime this thug was accused of was a selling point for some of his voters.
24 Likes
Yeah, that’s…odd. Voluntary manslaughter instead of murder usually means they think this was a “in the heat of the moment” crime or a crime of passion. Disgustingly, in the US, if you kill your partner or the other person when you catch them in the act of cheating on you, that legally can result in a reduced charge of voluntary manslaughter instead of murder. “Well yeah, I killed her, but it’s not as bad because she cheated on me.” I hate it, but that’s the law in the US. But that’s not what happened here. They were having an argument. She had filed for divorce days earlier, not that day, and in the heat of the argument, he picks up a flower pot and smashes her head in. I might buy voluntary manslaughter if it weren’t for what happened next. He drove her body to a creek and dumped her. If someone does something like that in the heat of the moment, they go, “Oh my God, what have I done?”, pick up the phone, and call 911. To me, trying to hide the body by dumping it in a creek indicates a lack of remorse in the moment, which indicates he wasn’t caught up in an out of control, heat of the moment situation. This sounds like murder, not manslaughter, to me. But…I wasn’t on the jury and I didn’t hear all the evidence, so who knows?
20 Likes
A garbage candidate for a garbage district.
3 Likes
He was running unopposed and came in a distant third, so “winning” is technically true.
There were three candidates for three slots and voters were told to vote for three. If he had gotten 0 votes, would he still win, as one of the top three?
Still horrifying that 60 people voted for him.
I’m hoping (wishing? fantasizing?) that 59 of them were a mix of people who thought “vote for three” meant that they were required to vote for three for their ballot to count, or saw the instruction and didn’t read the names or something.
8 Likes
How many of them saw the only thing that was important to them, the (R) next to the candidates’ names, and didn’t look any further?
12 Likes
I’m pretty sure the current Republican platform is that it is ok to kill some one so long as you “marry” them first. I’m surprised it impacted his race at all.
11 Likes
She waited to file for divorce until her chemo was done.
Think about what that means.
She couldn’t afford health insurance or treatment, or probably even the means to get herself to and from the doctor, so she had to stay in an abusive marriage — which was almost certainly becoming more and more abusive because she was less able to wait on him hand and foot as a result of the cancer and the treatment — so she had to hang on, knowing he was getting more dangerous to her, until she had completed the most acute part of her treatment.
She had to choose which would kill her: the cancer, or the husband.
Welcome to America.
31 Likes
Curious if any (all?) of 60 were just unaware of what he had done. Seems unlikely, but given what we saw with jury selection this week there are those that avoid local and national media.
3 Likes
the best kind of true.
8 Likes
You know everyone in that district? Do you live there yourself?
5 Likes
Wilhoite’s second law, apparently: murdering someone (on or off Fifth ave) won’t stop conservatives from voting for you.
4 Likes
Manslaughter, not murder. You really shouldn’t be so quick to tarnish the good name of a manslaughterer with the epithet of “Murderer.”
2 Likes
Was that meant to be dry humor? An “/s” would have helped.
5 Likes
We had a QA guy who lived in Indiana and was pretty much useless. He put in for all of his time off right at the beginning of the year.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
