wow, she seems like a gem

[DrPizza]

"Teen Cheyenne Cherry" - I came into this thread, thinking there was a chance it'd need moderation. Sounds like a porn name.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Cruelty to animals
No remorse
Sociopath


Next step is serial killing of humans. The pattern is there to see, alarm bells should be going off in the justice system.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Wait a second, the headline says that she killed the cat, but the article says that it was the 14 year old that did it. Who is the one that put the cat in the oven?

The 17 year old put the cat in there, the 14 was her accomplice.

From the article:

In court Wednesday, Cherry admitted to Judge Margaret Clancy that the younger girl put the cat in the oven - and "I didn't let the cat out."

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Cruelty to animals
No remorse
Sociopath


Next step is serial killing of humans. The pattern is there to see, alarm bells should be going off in the justice system.

Wait a second, that's a HUGE jump there. You can't say that someone who kills small animals is necessarily going to start serial killing humans.

I think people get confused with their logic because there is a statistic saying that most serial killers have killed small animals when their were younger. This does NOT mean that most people who kill small animals when they were younger become serial killers.

 

[Safeway]

That is so sad. How could you put a kitten in a fucking oven, and leave as it was crying out?

Serial killers start out as animal abusers.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Wait a second, the headline says that she killed the cat, but the article says that it was the 14 year old that did it. Who is the one that put the cat in the oven?

The 17 year old put the cat in there, the 14 was her accomplice.

From the article:

In court Wednesday, Cherry admitted to Judge Margaret Clancy that the younger girl put the cat in the oven - and "I didn't let the cat out."

And who's the adult that could have let the cat out?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: BoberFett
She sounds like a terrible person, but considering that the other side is animal activists, I just don't know who is more despicable.

because what could be worse than someone trying to stop cruelty to animals...

Animal activists are not about preventing cruelty to animals. They're Luddites who use animals as their emotional front in an attempt to drive humans back to living in caves and eating twigs and dirt. Unless of course it hurts the twigs feelings.

Wow, way to generalize. You should go down to your local SPCA and take them out before they make you eat twigs and dirt. There are plenty of animal activist that despise PETA. :disgust:

 

[tyler811]

wow could a person do that

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Wait a second, the headline says that she killed the cat, but the article says that it was the 14 year old that did it. Who is the one that put the cat in the oven?

The 17 year old put the cat in there, the 14 was her accomplice.

From the article:

In court Wednesday, Cherry admitted to Judge Margaret Clancy that the younger girl put the cat in the oven - and "I didn't let the cat out."

And who's the adult that could have let the cat out?

Neither one of them were adults (they were both under 18).

Both of them could have let the cat out.

There were 2 minors in that room, one who put the cat in the oven, and one who didn't. I'm not saying that this other girl was a nice girl, they both sound like real pieces of shit. However, you need to keep your logic sound and not press charges based on emotion. Charge the one who put the kitten in the oven, it sure didn't get in there by itself.

I think there was some logically unsound legal wrangling that went on in that case. The prosecutors probably knew that the charges wouldn't stick to the perpetrator (the 14 year old), so they stuck them on the older accomplice.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: hanoverphist

Tuerlings said she wanted to get a glimpse of the monster behind the cat execution. "It felt so good to look at her ugly face," she said. "Those evil eyes that she has."

holy shit, these activists are seeing devil in her. the pic of her is very normal, smiling and average. what she did really sucks, hope she gets punished. but still, damn.

The pic in the article wasn't from the court room.

 

[marvdmartian]

Ain't nothing a screwdriver stuck in her temple wouldn't solve. Jerk the handle around in a couple circles while it's inside her head, for extra goodness!

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: I Saw OJ

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Wait a second, the headline says that she killed the cat, but the article says that it was the 14 year old that did it. Who is the one that put the cat in the oven?

The 17 year old put the cat in there, the 14 was her accomplice.

From the article:

In court Wednesday, Cherry admitted to Judge Margaret Clancy that the younger girl put the cat in the oven - and "I didn't let the cat out."

And who's the adult that could have let the cat out?

Neither one of them were adults (they were both under 18).

Both of them could have let the cat out.

There were 2 minors in that room, one who put the cat in the oven, and one who didn't. I'm not saying that this other girl was a nice girl, they both sound like real pieces of shit. However, you need to keep your logic sound and not press charges based on emotion. Charge the one who put the kitten in the oven, it sure didn't get in there by itself.

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other is facing charges also but in family court b/c she is a minor.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

Rules vary b/c States have the power to make the decision. Based on your logic, why can't 18 year olds drink alcohol?

In regards to trying those under the age of 18 as adults for crime, sometimes it's state law but for other's it's due to the severity of the crime and ability of the person to be able to understand what they were doing.

Do you think those kids that performed the Columbine killings if caught alive should have been tried as minors? Or do you think they fully understood what they were planning to do?

 

[Capt Caveman]

dp

 

[tyler811]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

okay Spock we get it

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

Uh..

Then apply your logic and reason.

The logical reason we are able to "bend the rules" and try a 17 year old as an adult, is because for all intents and purposes she is an adult. Black and white rules do not work in the real world.

She knew what she was doing was wrong. I would be all for trying even the 14 year old as an adult. Being able to hide behind the guise of being a minor is stupid when it comes to things even a 4 year old would know.

What you're saying is as stupid as the 3 strikes and you're out laws, or the no tolerance policy in many schools. The real world requires logic and reason; bringing an 8ball of coke to school is different than someone slipping their friend some Midol.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

Rules vary b/c States have the power to make the decision. Based on your logic, why can't 18 year olds drink alcohol?

In regards to trying those under the age of 18 as adults for crime, sometimes it's state law but for other's it's due to the severity of the crime and ability of the person to be able to understand what they were doing.

Do you think those kids that performed the Columbine killings if caught alive should have been tried as minors? Or do you think they fully understood what they were planning to do?

I think that the government needs to decide what age constitutes an adult. They shouldn't make it an ambiguous number that's easily bent when it suits them.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

Rules vary b/c States have the power to make the decision. Based on your logic, why can't 18 year olds drink alcohol?

In regards to trying those under the age of 18 as adults for crime, sometimes it's state law but for other's it's due to the severity of the crime and ability of the person to be able to understand what they were doing.

Do you think those kids that performed the Columbine killings if caught alive should have been tried as minors? Or do you think they fully understood what they were planning to do?

I think that the government needs to decide what age constitutes an adult. They shouldn't make it an ambiguous number that's easily bent when it suits them.

Federal? B/c the State Government does. So, you think the Columbine killers should have been tried as minors? Though they planned the attack for a long time prior.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Eli

Uh..

Then apply your logic and reason.

The logical reason we are able to "bend the rules" and try a 17 year old as an adult, is because for all intents and purposes she is an adult.

Ok, then can she vote now? Can she buy cigarettes? Can she sign paperwork that requires the consent of an adult? After all, for all intents and purposes she is an adult.

Originally posted by: Eli
She knew what she was doing was wrong. I would be all for trying even the 14 year old as an adult. Being able to hide behind the guise of being a minor is stupid when it comes to things even a 4 year old would know.

I agree that she knew what she was doing was wrong. But when does the law ever bend to give citizens power over their government?

Originally posted by: Eli
What you're saying is as stupid as the 3 strikes and you're out laws, or the no tolerance policy in many schools. The real world requires logic and reason; bringing an 8ball of coke to school is different than someone slipping their friend some Midol.

Yes, the world does need logic and reason. Unfortunately many of these laws were passed as the result of knee-jerk reactions and have no logic or reason. They only time that you'll see the law turning a blind eye to the legal age of a defendant is when it suits them... to prosecute citizens. When does it ever bend to accommodate a person's needs or to empower them with more rights? It doesn't. It seems that the logic and reason ONLY bends one way, and that way is to empower the government over the people. In cases where the government wants to prosecute they say, "well, this person knew better- they're essentially an adult. This is an exception". In cases where a citizen wants to be granted a power that normally would not be afforded to them (such as voting a week before their birthday), the government says, "Sorry, the law is the law, no exceptions"

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

She was tried as an adult. In many states, a 17 year old is considered an adult. And the other pleaded guilty too but was a minor.

I'm actually against charging minors as adults. Why even make a law that states that people under 18 are minors if the prosecutors are allowed to bend the rules like that? Why not make 17 the cutoff point for adults? Or even 16?

I'm a person who values logic and reason. I do not let emotion overcome logic. I know they want to prosecute this girl but she's 17. If 17 qualifies as being an adult then let 17 year olds gain the rights of an adult. This has far-reaching legal implications that many people don't notice. People are willing to overlook this fact when the case involves a person that the public hates, but in the long term it's actually hurting the rights of average citizens, since you're allowing the government to cross that 18 year old threshold when it suits them, but you can't cross it when it suits you (like if you wanted to vote in an election or sign paperwork)

Uh..

Then apply your logic and reason.

The logical reason we are able to "bend the rules" and try a 17 year old as an adult, is because for all intents and purposes she is an adult. Black and white rules do not work in the real world.

She knew what she was doing was wrong. I would be all for trying even the 14 year old as an adult. Being able to hide behind the guise of being a minor is stupid when it comes to things even a 4 year old would know.

What you're saying is as stupid as the 3 strikes and you're out laws, or the no tolerance policy in many schools. The real world requires logic and reason; bringing an 8ball of coke to school is different than someone slipping their friend some Midol.

Then what's the point of the legal cutoff for adults as 18? If 17 year olds can reason just as easily, then 17 year olds should always be considered adults. Consistency.

 

[TruePaige]

This story still pisses me off.

That little murderer.

Between this and the:

Robbing someone at gunpoint for an iPod
Breaking into the apartment they did this horrible act at
Burglarizing said apartment
Kidnapped a Yorkie using a BB Gun

This human filth is a recipe for HATRED. Nothing good will ever come from ground this corrupted! This isn't right...this is so...wrong.

READ MORE ABOUT HER CRIMES! Read what happened with the Yorkie! Read that a NECROPSY had to be performed to determine the sex of the cat because it was burned so badly.

Smoke poured from the apartment as the kitten BURNED TO DEATH.

http://www.moggies.co.uk/articles/jun2009/bronx.html

I am so disgusted...I am disgusted not only with this heartless BITCH but with our whole justice system.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_GGAm.../cheyenne%2Bcherry.jpg

One is innocent and one is guilty.

 

[gdextreme]

WTF! Makes me wanna cry

 

[moparacer]

She looks like a nice person in that picture...

Yep those are always the ones you have to look out for.....

What a dumb ass heartless bitch......

 

[coloumb]

Wow - just ..wow. What kind of mind thinks "Hey - wouldn't it be cool to fire up the oven and throw that kitten inside!".

If it was a human baby - they'd get the death penalty. This should be no different...

This is just plain ridiculous - "agreed not to keep a pet for the next three years" - WTF?!!? I really do hope she's burned to death in whatever prison they send her to...