Josh Powell Suicide Murder Of Sons

[frankenstein]

From the CHI

Suicide

It is wrong to take a life, including one’s own. However, a person who commits suicide may not be responsible for his or her acts. Only God can judge such a matter.

-----------

A person who commits suicide may not be responsible for his or her acts (plural acts not singular act). My view is that what ever warp of mind lead josh powell to suicide is the same warp of mind that lead him to murder his children. Thus as see his at of murder of his children as swallowed by the suicide, thus in the words of the LDS Church he "may not be responsible for his acts" i.e. suicide and murder of his children.

Even since I was very young, I have thought that person whose suicide act includes the murder of others, as being a person who is possessed, or not entirely in control of their physical body.

[Judd]

This seems to reflect cultural understanding. The church, despite being against suicide, obviously, has made PC pushes to basically say "we don't know" when it comes to suicide. Would it change things if Josh only killed his kids and not himself? Does him killing himself then push this into the cultural "we don't know" category? Many-a-people have followed up their murders with suicide, most notably Hitler. It is certainly culturally acceptable to condemn Hitler to hell, but what about suicide? Between Josh and Hitler, where is the threshold where PC responses fail? At what point are acts so evil that we dismiss the urge for political correctness and aknowledge reality, as we have done with Hitler?

[selek1]

Judd-

I'm more inclined to describe the change as motivated by fairmindedness and compassion, rather than political correctness. And no, the concepts are not synonymous.

All-

Morningstar, Kenngo, and others have made excellent cases based on their understanding of the evidence. I don't believe that any of the arguments presented in this thread are unreasonable.

I simply choose (and obviously, urge others) to withhold judgement and leave that to the Lord.

Despite the press reports, despite the endless speculation- we simply don't know what was going on Josh Powell's mind.

We can guess.

We can liken his situation to our own and speculate about what we would do in similar straits.

We can speculate or even guess about motives and the meanings of his actions.

We can attempt to rationalize the incomprehensible.

But ultimately, true knowledge and understanding must wait for the wisdom and perspective that come with the resurrection.

To my limited mind, what we have here is a binary solution set

0) If Josh Powell was clinically insane (or otherwise not responsible) for his actions, then he is worthy of my compassion, my tears, and my prayers. He will not be held responsible for actions beyond his control.

1) If Josh Powell was sane and acted out of selfish, malicious evil, then he will pay- and pay dearly- for the innocent blood spilt. If he was guilty, I can still weep for the fallen, for the wounded, and- if nothing else- for what might have been.

In either case, judgement belongs to the Lord.

As a debtor myself, it is not my place to condemn him or judge Josh Powell.

It is not my place to extrapolate evidence against him, nor to pronounce him guilty when I don't know that beyond a reasonable doubt.

That responsibility belongs to the Lord- and I trust him to discharge it faithfully, equitably, and compassionately.

[blackstrap]

Sane or insane,if he had survived the fire,he would have been JUDGED,by society,and locked up indefinitely at least,and executed at best. We don't put that responsibility on the Lord.I can only take so much .."it may not have been his fault so we should not judge" Society must judge or disintegrate into chaos. I know that there are many cases in which there is reasonable doubt,this,IMUO is not one of them.

[MorningStar]

Whatever happens to Josh in the eternities is up to God, but people had to make judgments here as to whether he was safe to be around and had legitimate fears. It just really burns my bum to look at all of the evidence and hear Josh's sister Alina basically saying that Josh didn't murder Susan, but he did become a murderer of himself and his sons because of the "abuse" he endured from the media, police, and others. Again, I don't believe an innocent person would eventually respond to such pressure by murdering their children. I could see a person killing themselves, but not chopping their children with a hatchet in front of the other and blowing them up. Blaming that on other people is just adding to their hurt.

[selek1]

Sane or insane,if he had survived the fire,he would have been JUDGED,by society,and locked up indefinitely at least,and executed at best. We don't put that responsibility on the Lord.I can only take so much .."it may not have been his fault so we should not judge" Society must judge or disintegrate into chaos. I know that there are many cases in which there is reasonable doubt,this,IMUO is not one of them.

Yes- Powell would have been tried and judged by competent (and duly designated) legal authority, appropriate medical personnel, and a jury of his peers.

He would not have been left to the tender mercies of an ignorant mob.

Powell's trial would have reviewed all of the evidence to reach a verdict.

The courts would not rely on cherry-picked accounts carefully selected by the media and the yokels at the West Valley Police.

Had Powell survived, his trial would have been regulated by rules of jurisprudence and due-process, instead of rumor, innuendo, gossip, and a lynch mob mentality.

You'd think- given our history- that Latter-day Saints (of all people) would eschew mobocracy- no matter who gets to wield the pitchforks.

people had to make judgments here as to whether he was safe to be around and had legitimate fears.

True.

But there is a vast difference between private judgement and discretion and the very public "hang'em-high-who-cares-about-evidence" sort of damnation to which Powell was subjected.

It just really burns my bum to look at all of the evidence

Does "all the evidence" include the (post-mortum) admission by the West Valley that they had no admissable evidence against Powell?

Does "all the evidence" include the (post-mortum) admission by the West Valley that their very public West Desert digs and Washington raids were nothing more than entrapment? They've admitted that (in the absence of usable evidence) they were trying to spook Powell into doing something incriminating.

Does "all the evidence" include the fact that Powell's sister expressed her concerns about her brother's mental state before he took the lives of his children as well as after?

Again, I don't believe an innocent person would eventually respond to such pressure by murdering their children.

Once again, you are holding Powell to the standard of a sane and reasonable person.

Is there any direct evidence that either word applied to him that Sunday morning?

Much has been made of the alleged hatchet blows. Any good psychologist will admit that those kinds of attacks are indicative of severe anger issues.

Might those anger issues have stemmed from the persecution and harrassment to which he was being subjected?

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion- but the simple virtue that it is your opinion does make it incontrovertible or beyond challenge.

Reasonable people can and do disagree with your interpretation of events.

Blaming that on other people is just adding to their hurt.

And if the guilt that people feel is justified?

http://www.the-spear...powell-tragedy/

Josh Powell may well have been a murderer, but there was no direct evidence to suggest he was a pervert. It was just another investigative tool and pressure tactic, again using the children as the excuse, and the humiliation factor (including the use of a plesmograph, I assume), was virtually guaranteed to create a great deal of anger. The police in this case did everything they could to create an explosive situation with the children right in the middle. Without evidence, police use pressure tactics to elicit confessions. This is what they had been doing for the last six months, and they were using the children as the lever.

What then?

Ultimately, I don't expect any of you to agree with me.

Placing the blame solely on Josh Powell's head (regardless of the evidence) provides a nice, trite, gift-wrapped little ending to the saga.

It relieves us of the burden of examining our own assumptions, prejudices, and gives us a nice little blue "justice has been served" placebo.

It truly is the path of least resistance.

It also builds momentum.

It happened in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

It happened to Ed Smart.

It happened to Josh Powell.

So....what happens to the next person who is accused on little or no evidence?

Do we let the accelerating juggernaut of prejudice, and complacency steam roll their Constitutional rights, as well?

[blackstrap]

I recall a few years ago,when a man was tried by his peers,all the evidence was presented(sort of) ,and it was done in the full light of public opinion. Justice was seen to be done,but in the end,the system failed,at least in my opinion. There are too many ways to manipulate the system of justice for society to have unquestioning faith in it.

[Ares]

Since this story has died down a bit in the news and the thread is mostly about political concerns this is a good time to close it.