JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/01/im-officially-ambivalent-about-this.html (37 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1138682566-342105  Morenuancedthanyou at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 04:42:46 +0000

As a rule, I avoid making "me too" comments.
> I'd vote to acquit.
Me too.

jsid-1138713542-342132  Tom at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 13:19:02 +0000

The "supervised visitation" thing is a bit odd. Knowing the source of that might shed some light on things. Of course, as divorces go the guy can get the shaft even if he doesn't deserve it.

I definitely agree with your assessment of what to do when the State fails you and I give this woman a whole lot of credit for standing up and admitted what she did. I just hope she was right.

jsid-1138716439-342135  markm at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:07:19 +0000

The worst possible time to bring up charges of molestation is in the middle of a divorce, because the judge and cops have seen dozens of false accusations in these circumstances. Unless the woman has ironclad physical evidence, they'll think it's just another tactic to squeeze out more money or to win custody. And sometimes it has become clear that the ex-wife has come to believe her accusations, even though they are both unfounded and physically impossible...

Obviously, real evidence was lacking in this case - on either side, because any smart psychopath can pass psychological and polygraph tests.

"Supervised visitation" is just that. A social worker stays in the room with them the whole time.

jsid-1138717738-342140  Engineer-Poet at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 14:28:58 +0000

This is a situation where I could not vote to acquit no matter what.

* The accusations were made under conditions which suggest, based on experience, that they were entirely false.
* Supervised visitation is no threat whatsoever to the child.
* The act shows premeditation.

That's murder 1.

I honestly hope the bag lives long enough to be executed, and the dead man's siblings get all the assets that would have gone to the ex-wife.

jsid-1138725822-342167  Rusticus at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 16:43:42 +0000

My sister is in a similar boat.

She has credible, but not slam-dunk, evidence that her ex was abusing their child, but the judges this case have come before have ruled in his favor.

Supervised visitation is a sick joke. He verbally abuses her, in front of the social worker.

He's made threats to hurt mommy during those visits, told the child that mommy wanted to see him dead, told her she's the reason daddy and mommy aren't togther, told her she has to pay for that, etc, etc.

My sister has managed to get restaining orders now and then against this creep. Her daughter is a bright, happy child during these times, and lapses into a sullen, withdrawn thing after the orders have been repealed.

And yet the psychologiest don't see anything wrong.

Oh, and he was abusing my sister before the divorce, but like so many women, she didn't think to get the police involved as witnesses.

I'd have to be on the jury to see the evidence, but based on what is known and what I've seen of pedophiles and abusers, I'd acquit.

But that's just me.

jsid-1138733122-342185  Kevin Baker at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:45:22 +0000

That's why we have jury trials.

And why all twelve jurors have to agree to get a conviction.

jsid-1138733242-342186  KCSteve at Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:47:22 +0000

As noted, we don't have enough information (and may never have it) to decide one way or the other if her actions were justified.

But like you I can admire her for having the courage of her convictions to not run.

When it comes down to it, that may be the key factor in deciding her fate. Had she tried to escape then even if her accusations are 100% correct then she's still guilty of Murder 1. Since she didn't run then, if her allegations are correct, she may be in one of the many grey areas involving defense of others.

jsid-1138757138-342243  Bob Reynolds at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:25:38 +0000

Well, I would say that based on the story it looks like murder.

But then I am a firm believer in the "he needed killing defense". My view of this is that if the accused uses this defense then the accused must admit openly in court to the murder and then the victim is put on trial. To be aquited requires a unanimous not guilty verdict and a hung jury results in a conviction, i.e., don't use this defense without HIGH confidence that all on the jury will agree with you as it reverses the normal result of one juror holding out.

That being said, if she could convince me he needed killing then I would vote to aquit.

Note: this is NOT the same as jury nullification as it does not so much imply that the law is wrong as that the law against murder does not apply in this particular set of circumstances. And no, I don't expect something like this to ever actually be "allowed"; I just think it is a good idea.

jsid-1138757697-342244  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 01:34:57 +0000

this is NOT the same as jury nullification as it does not so much imply that the law is wrong as that the law against murder does not apply in this particular set of circumstances

Actually, that is part of Jury Nullification - determining that the law is inappropriate in a particular circumstance.

As to the rest of your idea, interesting, but it's not how our system of law is set up. One out of twelve decides that she ought to walk, you get a hung jury. Then the State decides if it wants to retry.

jsid-1138772626-342264  Jaycen at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 05:43:46 +0000

The OC Register printed the following story about the situation. My question is, "why did the marine have to get finger printed?"

He's a marine, so his prints are already on record with the federal government. It just seems kind of stupid, I guess. Then, he shouldn't have volunteered the fact that he cleaned the gun for her and advertised that he also provided the ammunition. That won't help her, but could certainly hurt him.


jsid-1138793411-342279  Dave Petterson at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 11:30:11 +0000

Imagine this was your son that was wasted. He has been accused as part of a ,now standard, divorce ploy and you all believe it is untrue. How do you feel?

If the 'He needed killing excuse' is valid then surely pedophilia is now a capital offence. But, it's not. Now let's not go on if it should be or not as we all draw the line at different places. If she gets off with it then does she need killing? Where does it stop?

She took the law into her own hands. Regardless of if he was or not a pedophile. She deserves the punishment reserved for that crime.

jsid-1138798138-342281  phlegmfatale at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 12:48:58 +0000

Me too. Definitely acquital. God bless her.

jsid-1138801865-342286  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 13:51:05 +0000

"If the 'He needed killing excuse' is valid then surely pedophilia is now a capital offence. But, it's not."

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

Armed robbery isn't a capital offense, either. Unless the robber tries to rob someone who is armed.

As KCSteve noted, if Reyes was a pedophile, what Allen did was justifiable homicide in the defense of another.

The law is not black-and-white, nor should it be applied rigidly in all cases. That is, as I said, the reason for jury trials.

jsid-1138810157-342300  Rand. at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:09:17 +0000

I'm having some trouble with this.

There's a majority assumption of guilt. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The man had no conviction, no jury trial, and by the current state of law as practiced, had a cruel and unusual punishment. His rights were abused or refused by this woman.

On a blog that professes a beleif in the constitution, and of fundamental, inalienable, rights, this is hypocritical cherry-picking at it's height.

I could not, would not, support an aquittal. I can not imagine an arguement that would change my mind, for this situation.

IF the situation were different, if justice was denied, a mis-trial, or travesty like the recent light sentence of a pedophile were the case, I could accept jury nullification. If continued abuse was permitted by the courts and government, I would accept and support the grandmother taking her sovriegnty into her own hands. But to do so, and do so ethically and soundly, one _must_ pass the bar that has been set by generations of americans.

Think about what your comparing and holding this act of murder up to. To the protestors who practiced civil disobiediance in the civil rights struggle. To the revolutionaries who fought to establish this country after enduring years of tyrany. To the men who took back thier town from corrupt officials, only excercising thier sovreignty after all other methods were exhausted.

What the grandmother did amounts to mob justice. I hope I don't need to lecture about why that's wrong. Why we don't allow vigilantism and mobs, and why we insist on impartial justice.

I'm saddened, today, to see that individuals who should know better, who should know the document they profess fealty to, can so easily throw its basic tenents away, without a backward glance, over the first difficult case that comes their way.

jsid-1138811057-342303  Rand. at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:24:17 +0000


If that armed robber you spoke of shoots you first, is it justifiable homicide? Self-defense?

If the man was a pedaphile, then he should have had his day in court. Regardless of whether he was a pedophile or not, he should have had his day in court.

You are correct, that the law is not black and white, and that a jury is needed. But for other reasons, equally as important. It is up to them to decide if the man was a guilty of a crime, precisely because they are impartial. They are not biased. They are not biased by a bad divorce with the defendant, they are not trying to get revenge, nor are they delusional in seeing the defendant through preconceptions and emotions.

Whether or not pedaphilia should be a capital crime, or life sentence, is not at debate here. It is not, at this time, a capital offense. But for this man, the accusation was enough for a capital punishment. What you and others are advocating is a modern day Salem witch-hunt, a return to mob law, of cross burning, and mob hangings.

Be very careful where you tread... Many a good man has found his path to hell paved with intentions as pure as snow.

I'm not saying the man didn't deserve killing. I don't know. But he never had a chance to show us either way.

jsid-1138813019-342307  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:56:59 +0000

"On a blog that professes a beleif in the constitution, and of fundamental, inalienable, rights, this is hypocritical cherry-picking at it's height."

No, it's not. It's the exercise of the fundamental, inalienable right to the defense of one's family when the State has failed to do so.

"There's a majority assumption of guilt."

Yes, there is. When someone decides that taking a life is necessary to defend themselves or another, the presumption is (at least for most of us) that the decision was not made lightly. I said myself that I wasn't there and I don't know the facts, and I hope the facts come out.

"His rights were abused or refused by this woman."

NOT if he was an ongoing threat to the child.

"I could not, would not, support an aquittal. I can not imagine an arguement that would change my mind, for this situation."

So if your child was being serially molested, but you couldn't prove it to the State to the point where they would intervene, and the State insisted that your child had to be exposed to the molester, you would take no action at all?

"What the grandmother did amounts to mob justice."

I don't see it that way. But I admit up front I don't have enough information to make that judgement. All I have is the LA Times story to go by. If you have more information, I'd be pleased to see it. As I said, I'm ambivalent about it, but from what little information I have I go with acquittal.

"I'm not saying the man didn't deserve killing. I don't know. But he never had a chance to show us either way."

But in order to give him that chance - assuming he was guilty - he'd have had considerably more time in which to molest his son, and possibly other children. So whose rights are more important? His, or his son's?

These decisions aren't supposed to be easy, and there is no cookie-cutter solution to them.

"What you and others are advocating is a modern day Salem witch-hunt, a return to mob law, of cross burning, and mob hangings."

No, I'm advocating that a jury decide after hearing the evidence. Not that we just rubber-stamp her actions.

jsid-1138813176-342308  WKM at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 16:59:36 +0000

You write, she had given up on the State as a solution to her family's problem.?

She admits she never even told the police about the so-called pedophile accusations.

The court stipulated he be examined by mental health experts and doctors because of the accusations made during the custody hearings.

Court obviously took the situation serious enough to author supervised visits.

Story indicates he was speaking with his ex-wife (not fighting, not hitting)when he was shot.

I support the 2nd amendment and I support the right for one to defend one's self, family and property.

But, frankly, this looks like murder, pure and simple.

jsid-1138813622-342309  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 17:07:02 +0000

"She admits she never even told the police about the so-called pedophile accusations."

The accusations were a matter of record from the divorce proceedings. Whether Ms. Allen herself "told the police" is immaterial. They had been informed.

"Court obviously took the situation serious enough to author supervised visits."

Assuming Reyes was a molester, that would be of very little comfort to the boy, his mother, or his great-grandmother.

"But, frankly, this looks like murder, pure and simple"

That's why we have jury trials.

jsid-1138821285-342328  KCSteve at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:14:45 +0000


I have to disagree with you on one point:
had a cruel and unusual punishment.

Unusual - no, many people are shot to death. In fact, death by firearm is a bit too usual these days.

Cruel - doesn't seem so. She didn't shoot him in the gut and keep him locked up until he died of perotinitis or anything. She took him down as quickly and cleanly as she could.

Just a nit becuase I was just explaining to my ever-indulgent wife (she's from Taiwan) what sort of punishments they were outlawing with the 8th Amendment.

jsid-1138825120-342347  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:18:40 +0000

"Unusual - no, many people are shot to death. In fact, death by firearm is a bit too usual these days."

It's a lot less usual than it was a decade ago.

jsid-1138825270-342350  bud at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:21:10 +0000

Sorry, I've seen *waaay* too many divorce proceedings in which the husband is accused of sexual molestation as a tactic.

There's a reason for this. It works.

The emotional pull of "for the children" can overcome rational thought, and not just for the gun-grabbers; for divorcing mothers, too.

Wenatchee is a graphic example of the power of a child abuse allegation; in that situation, the allegations not only approached "ludicrous" they went miles beyond, but it took 6 years to exonerate the accused.

I'll wait for a trial before I give the old lady a pass.

jsid-1138825801-342351  Kevin Baker at Wed, 01 Feb 2006 20:30:01 +0000

Same for condemning her.

jsid-1138864704-342402  Engineer-Poet at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 07:18:24 +0000

He was on her property.  He was subject to surveillance or immediate intervention at any time.  If he really was a molester, all the old lady would have to do is get videotape of him (and put him away) or wait until he was in flagrante delicto before shooting him.  Then there would be no questions.

What Rand said.  A dozen times over.

jsid-1138867331-342405  Jaycen at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 08:02:11 +0000

I've been chewing on this for a day since reading it.

First, let me say that only the government of the United States is prohibited from "cruel and unusual punishment" by the Constitution. Just like you can't call "1st ammendment" if your office tells you not to wear T-shirts with messages on them (regardless of the message, even if it says "Love is Good"). That seems to be a common misconception and oft-used erroneous arguement used by leftists (not at all claiming Rand is a leftist, just stating the obvious).

Second, based solely on the facts presented on this site and the few news outlets I've seen, Ms. Allen is guilty of murder. The man was not convicted of a crime. In fact, he never went to trial over the accusation. He was supposed to have a hearing, but she made sure he never got that far.

I've always thought that Rape and Sexual Molestation should be capital offenses. Had he been convicted of molesting his son and still allowed visitation (supervised or otherwise) I'd be cheering Ms. Allen and her actions. Since the guy never even got his day in court, she just comes out looking kind of pathetic - certainly not heroic in any context.

When an individual citizen has exhausted every avenue available to them under the law, it's easy to champion the cause of the underdog who finally bucks the system and takes matters into their own hands. That's what America was founded on. The colonials tried for years to work within the system, but were thwarted at every turn. The founders didn't simply decide they didn't like the colonial system one day and start shooting soldiers.

Unless and until solid proof of wrong-doing can be presented against the victim, Reyes, I have to say that Ms. Allen should be executed for 1st degree murder.

Usually, I agree with you , Kevin. This time, I think you let your passion for your cause carry you away. I'm really surprised to read your opinion on this matter. Your reasoning as presented in your 7th paragraph is the weakest arguement I've ever seen you produce. That's not saying much, since every arguement I've read from you has been rock solid, but I think you totally dropped the ball on this one.

jsid-1138889080-342417  Kevin Baker at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 14:04:40 +0000

Jaycen, what do you think personal sovereignty means?

jsid-1138912724-342497  KCSteve at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:38:44 +0000


True, the number's dropping, but it's still either too high or too low. Too high if you just look at it as 'number of people killed' and too low if you look at the type of people doing most of the shooting and dying. If that group would just get together in one place and finish up the rest of us could go about our business.

She's undeniably guilty of homicide, it's just a question of which type with the choices ranging all the way from 'justifiable' to 'murder in the first'. Pre-meditation is too firmly established to allow some of the options.

In a way this will be a sort of a double trial, with her fate resting on how well the Defense makes the case against her victim.

jsid-1138912963-342501  Rand. at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:42:43 +0000


"when the State has failed to do so" is my point. The State was not allowed to do it's job, because the grandmother took matters into her own hand. The State didn't fail, it wasn't given the chance to fail. If you want to argue that in cases of potential molestation, a preemptive strike is ethically sound, then do so.

"Not if he was an ongoing threat to the child."

His right to a trial wasn't refused?

"The Trial of all Crimes, ...shall be by Jury"
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"

Perhaps I should ask how you define a threat that requires deadly force to counter?
Or perhaps I should ask what you mean by ongoing threat... Wouldn't a person who routinely drives down your road intoxicated be an ongoing threat to your children? Is the habitual speeder, who travels the same route your children's bus does, an ongoing threat? The drug-dealer or gang-banger, who hangs around the corner where your children play, an ongoing threat to your children?
And do you have the ethical right to end thier lives, without giving the courts thier chance?

I specifically said, I could understand, and agree, IF the state had failed in it's duty. But the woman didn't give the state that chance to fail.

"if your child was being serially molested..."
That's not the case here. The man was only allowed supervised visitation. The state had already intervened. The question you ask is not the situation as quoted in the article you presented.

"But in order to give him that chance - assuming he was guilty - he'd have had considerably more time in which to molest his son, and possibly other children. So whose rights are more important? His, or his son's?

And you ask the money question.

Let me ask a question back to you, before answering-

In which legal definition would you live in: innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent.

This is, in effect, what your asking me. You're just using an emotional, and rather personal, form of asking.

My answer: Innocent until proven guilty.

And again, I have to reiterate, the state was doing what it was supposed to do. It restricted his access to the child so that further crimes could not be committed. Or are you saying the social worker would permit sexual abuse? A trial was scheduled in March, where the man could have had his rightful day in court. Or are you saying that the man shouldn't have been allowed to go to court, because there was a chance the court would fail it's duty?

jsid-1138914770-342508  Kevin Baker at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 21:12:50 +0000


The custody case was going to trial in March, not a trial of Reyes on charges of molestation.

As I read your argument, Allen should have waited until March, and then if Reyes got unsupervised visitation, THEN shooting him might have been more justified?

"Innocent until proven guilty" is a good system from the perspective of restricting the power of government. Unfortunately (and inescapably), along with that restriction we run the risk of a lot of injustice. The burden of proof is set particularly high - and with good reason - in child molestation cases. As I said, I wasn't there. I don't KNOW. There's all likelihood that Allen's granddaughter made up the charges in order to make life hell for her ex, and gramma believed her when she shouldn't have.

If that's the case, and it comes out at trial, then she ought to spend the rest of her life in jail, and her daughter ought to be charged as an accessory.

But if there's sufficient evidence that Reyes was a molester, and I were on the jury, I'd vote to acquit.

You might not like that, but I'm telling you what I'd do. The fact remains, in a society in which the individual is sovereign individuals get to make decisions like Ms. Allen made - they just have to live with the consequences of them. As I said, she made her decision and stood by it. She didn't lie, obfuscate, or run for the hills.

Now she'll be judged. We'll see what happens.

jsid-1138917839-342517  Rand. at Thu, 02 Feb 2006 22:03:59 +0000

Ah, a good sematics argument to freshen the day...

Unusual punishment:
According to _Executions_in_the_U.S._1608-1987_ in just shy of 400 years, only 142 men have been judicially shot in the United States and Collonies.

Of those 142, only 2 have occurred since 1967, or 39 years.

Of the 2, both were carried out in Utah, which banned execution by firing squad on March 15, 2004.

Of the 50 States, only 2 remain that allow execution by firing squad, Idaho and Oklahoma.

According to The_Collaborative_International_Dictionary_of_English_v.48, via www.dict.org, Definition 2 of Punishment, is:
"2. Any pain, suffering, or loss inflicted on a person because of a crime or offense."

The man was punished by the woman. Granted?

2 incidences in 40 years of capital punishment most similar to that punishment given by the woman is hardly common. It's less than 1% of the executions in the last 5 years.

This certainly qualifies it for unusual.

As to cruel. This is likely to be a matter of opinion. However, I'll submit thes:
"The 1977 Coker v. Georgia ruling barred the death penalty for rape of a 16 year old married female, and, by implication, for any offense other than murder."

jsid-1138994937-342642  Sam at Fri, 03 Feb 2006 19:28:57 +0000

"The accusations were a matter of record from the divorce proceedings."

Good god! If your husband is absuing your child (and I'm assuming we're talking about a kiddy fiddler here, not just someone slapping him about a little), you don't file for divorce - you call the police, you get yourself and your child out of danger, and then you file divorce paperwork.

jsid-1138998279-342657  cube at Fri, 03 Feb 2006 20:24:39 +0000

the guy she shot was apparently a cop. Though i saw a video of her and she was old. I have no idea weather she was in her right mind or not.

Her neighbor cleaned her very old gun and got her some bullets before she shot they guy. If the neighbor was responible, i doubt he would have done that for a crazy old lady.

"But if there's sufficient reason to believe Reyes was a pedophile, and the State failed to protect her great-grandson, I'd vote to acquit."

yep me to.

jsid-1139180318-342836  Don Allen at Sun, 05 Feb 2006 22:58:38 +0000

I think we are all missing a quote she made to the LA Times:

"Allen told The Times that Reyes helped adjust a strap on a stroller she had just bought for the toddler. She said things were fine until he brought up accusations that she had made against him and that were contained in divorce proceedings. He asked her for a letter of apology, she said.

"I'm sorry, but at that point, that makes me look like a liar, and I just had it," Allen told The Times, adding that she went to a drawer, grabbed the gun, shot him, and then called 911.

Allen said she told the 911 dispatcher, "I just shot a pedophile."

Ok, that was not a statement that she was protecting anything other than her pride. As crazy as it sounds, she could actually be lying about the molestation. I mean I have to agree with a few here saying that if someone is abusing my child, GET THE CHILD AND MYSELF OUT! Then call the police and then file for divorce. Come on, that's day one stuff. If it is true that they saw this and allowed it to continue even for one minute then aren't they by rule an accessory? In my custody hearing with my ex-girlfriend she said I was doing meth-amphetamines. I am 5' 11' tall and 225 pounds. I offered immediately to take a hair drug taste as soon as I walk out that door. Still, the court ordered supervised visitation (LA County Court) until it could be proven. Then as I endured 16 hours a month with my little girl as someone watched me like a criminal. Her Mother would keep finding continuation excuses as I held a drug test paper. So there is no selling me on the idea that he was supervised, so he must have been guilty. The system is flawed, but the first reaction was to protect the child, I am not bothered by that part, it was the lying and that she had to stoop that low to keep my kid from me.

I think if we are to draw sides from the known public evidence:

Her statement of no one calling her a liar.
Her asking the neighbor to clean a gun she has not ever actually used in years. The night before she happens to need it.
That she NEVER reported to the authorities that a child was molested, instead expecting a divorce hearing to hold criminal intervention, supposedly months after the abuse.
All witnesses say they were speaking casually and then she shot him out of nowhere without the appearance of aggravation.
They had not had a hearing yet, that was in March and up until this day (Days after the court continues the case until March) she was satisfied with supervised visits.
Mr. Reyes was asked to come over by the ex-Wife 20 minutes early to help put a stroller together AND that just happened to be with no court ordered monitor there so there was no one to tell us what seemed like placid conversation but was actually demanding and frightening.
He took two lie detector tests and neither implicated him.
He saw specialists in sexual crimes and they determined he was not of the type to commit sexual crimes on children.
No one but the alleged murderer has a negative thing to say about him.
He just graduated from Police Academy and as the Brother-In-Law of a Sheriff's Deputy I know the battery of tests they have to go through these days. They want a better, smarter, cooler cop. Alone, this statement means little, but piled with evidence, it may be important.
There has been no moment that he has been alone with that child in months, and it was NOT going to happen at present, so why kill him today?
Lastly, her statement:
"I'm sorry, but at that point, that makes me look like a liar, and I just had it,"

Ok, I am not a legal expert, but it appears to me as murder 1.

She had the gun cleaned the night before because she knew what she was out to do.
She had him called there 20 minutes before the monitor to ensure no actual witnesses.
She shot him minutes before the monitor arrived.
She then went into the house and figured the cops would be cool with it because they had accused him of molestation and she was protecting the child. Everyone will side with her.
I guess that did not work out so well.
Plus, she was 81; maybe she was not actually in her right mind. No offense, I know there a lot of 81 year olds out there that are very sharp still, but the average 81 year old is not.

Oh, and her statement:
"I'm sorry, but at that point, that makes me look like a liar, and I just had it,"

For all those out there ready to give her a parade, what if it is your Son who is wrongly accused of this to win a custody battle? We take the approach that molestation is bad and punishable by death by vigilante justice because the system failed. Wrong, the system did not fail, she never let it. Maybe she knew he was innocent and wanted to win and had this great plan. She never wanted him to marry her grand-Daughter; this was a way to make him know how much she hates him. Court was in March. I am not the most level individual, but if you go over a year and not attack him, then why at this moment? No harm could have come to the child, there was a monitor with them. He would have if nothing else locked up a prison sentence and never seen that child again.

I agree with the other side mildly, if he was guilty, (none of us can be sure,) then he should suffer somehow, legally hopefully. If you are accused of anything you have the right to a trial. Alex never got his because she made sure he never made it to court. That dispels anything other than vigilante murder. If the system had let him go and she was so sure he was guilty, then shooting him then would have given me more of a sympathetic ear towards her, but I still want justice. I want the rights guaranteed to her by the US Constitution. We escaped England to define this document and enact a just and safe world. The system is not perfect, but it never got a chance. We need to stop telling everyone how we support it and in truth, we support the parts of it that serve our needs and opinions. The other parts of it we can basically cut out and roll a fat joint with because it could in someway enact action different from our emotional, irrational ideas. (Sorry for the slang, but it was to make a point.)

One last question. If he is innocent and there is no evidence of guilt, better yet, he IS innocent, is it OK for Alex Reyes Dad to kill her before court? I mean eye for an eye right? If my child was molested, sure I would want to kill the person that did it, but as soon as a year went by I would no doubt be of a cooler head to let justice prevail. They still however had the responsibility, no the liability, of going to the Police and providing a report. Now, if someone murdered my child in front of no one or as many witnesses as they had, I sure as hell would be more inclined to react fatally. However, that is why I am not the arresting officer, the judge or on the jury. Oh yeah, and the crime was heinous enough to kill him months later, but not immediately go to the Police? Molestation no matter who it happens to is not murder. The person survives and hopefully is able to lead a good life. I guess what you are saying is that if they do not then it is a good thing that he was murdered, but if the victim is Ok, we might think differently. Sex offenders are sick, it can happen to anyone. I am not sure what snaps, I could never understand them, but if our kids was the one who was the offender, we would seek assistance and not be ready for the street justice that may or not be fueled from a lie or the truth. We have the system to protect everyone, because it may not feel right to let someone go to court when they may or may not have committed a heinous crime when we can end this right here and now, it is the right thing. I think too as many of us that say we would kill and promote this tyranny she practices that in reality we may actually be able in the heat of the moment to actually let our minds intervene and negotiate with our emotions that they are not worth it and we don’t want to spend the rest of our lives in prison because we wanted them to suffer. No one is worth the time that child is going to endure when he now grows up in the system with who knows what and has a better chance of becoming a drug addict then ever seeing the walls inside a university. If it was my child molested, I would have done the right thing first. Call the cops, protect my child and remember that they need me more than the other person needs to die. If he is a molester, no good psychopath can hide it forever. Love your child more than you hate the offender. Ever hear the song “Medicine Man”?

I was sad to see so many people with such lucid arguments in other places take such a sloppy approach to this. I hope she gets her day in court, and she will. We have decided socially though that Alex doesn't deserve that. Who is the criminal now?

jsid-1139182663-342838  Kevin Baker at Sun, 05 Feb 2006 23:37:43 +0000


I have not followed up on the story. I did not see the piece where Ms. Allen made the "makes me look like a liar" statement, nor the "twenty minutes early to assemble a stroller" story.

Given that information, I would be far more likely to see the case as Murder 1, too.

As I said when I wrote the original piece, it was based on the LA Times story that I reprinted, and that only. I said at that time, "This is a perfect example of what jury trials are for." I also said "I wasn't there. I don't know the facts. Perhaps he was a loving father, her grand-daughter is a bitch and a chip off the old bag, and great-gramma just hated his guts. I hope a grand-jury hearing will ask these questions, and if it comes to trial the facts will come out."

Apparently the facts are coming out.

Thanks for updating us.

jsid-1139184534-342843  Don Allen at Mon, 06 Feb 2006 00:08:54 +0000

Because we are of two minds on an issue, and we are both willing to listen, proves us not only scholars, but gentlemen.
I have read many of your posts and I have to say that your ability to reason and argue is remarkable. I must admit that even though the facts I present are accurate, that this subject makes me passionate only because I have been on the end of the accusation that was baseless. A Father only wanting to be with his child and told he has to have a third party there because of a lie. I know that not everyone is innocent, maybe most are not, but many, many men and women are accused of things falsely to gain custody. I think that Grandma believed it, but I am not of a mind that her mind was anything other than an "Call me a liar, I'll show you!" I think someone said that if he threatens you on your porch and you shoot him it is legal. She did out of hate and this is where hate gets you.
To be fair however, she deserves and will get her day in court. I could be wrong, he could have been calmly threatening her. Words said in a monotone can be stronger than yelling. But at least she gets that trial for us to find out. She robbed Alex of that.


jsid-1139197275-342868  Kevin Baker at Mon, 06 Feb 2006 03:41:15 +0000


"She robbed Alex of that."

Actually that was kind of my point. In a society where the individual is sovereign - where individuals have recognized and protected rights, and the power to act outside of the law, they have the concomitant responsibility to act justly. If, in actuality, she was protecting her grandson where the State had or was failing, then I, as a jurist, would feel it necessary to conclude that the law in this case was unjust, and I would vote to acquit. If, however, she acted out of error and hatred, I'd vote to convict. Sovereign citizens will decide which.

And still, they may err.

What she did was make a decision as a sovereign citizen and then stand to accept the judgement of her peers for her actions. She didn't lie, she didn't run.

An innocent man may have been killed. But living in a society where the power to kill legitimately remains in the hands of the citizens as well as rather than exclusively in the hands of agents of the government, you run that risk. Agents of the government sometimes kill in error, sometimes maliciously, too.

I'd rather live in a society that has people like Ms. Allen in it, because it means that the sovereign individual still exists. We are not yet a collective society, conforming en masse to the dictates of our government and cowering in fear of both it and our criminal element.

Those who lead us do not yet rule us.

jsid-1139590920-343478  Engineer-Poet at Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:02:00 +0000

You didn't note that this gross injustice was likely the fruit of an earlier, somewhat lesser injustice: the (probably false) accusation of molestation.

If falsely-accused ex-spouses got mandatory damage recovery from the accusers (and divorce counsel, if involved), this problem would be greatly reduced. Taking responsibility for what you say is also part of sovereignity.

jsid-1139768468-343662  Kevin Baker at Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:21:08 +0000

No argument there.

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>