Boy Kills Father Over Bad Grades
Then he set fire to the house to hide the body!
What’s really odd is the difference in the last names. Makes me wonder if Bruner wasn’t the boy’s stepfather.
What sort of desperation must a kid have to resort to such a thing? Or what sort of evil inside?
SANTA CLARA, Calif. -- A 15-year-old boy allegedly killed his father then set their home on fire because he was afraid his father would find out he was failing some classes, prosecutors said.
Ryan Watts was charged Friday with murdering his father, 50-year-old John E. Bruner, who was initially believed to have died in the fire earlier this week. He was charged as an adult.
Watts was arrested Wednesday after an autopsy determined that Bruner died from multiple gunshot wounds and not from the fire, Santa Clara police said.
Man Uses Rat Poison to Kill His Three Children
The coward wasn’t brave enough to kill himself as he told police he planned to do. This is a tragic story because those children had already been taken from this family once. Note that bit about this couple losing another child through drowning.
I must wonder why God lets some people reproduce.
May those precious children rest in peace and may they be at God’s right hand side.
Babysitter Charged In 2-Year-Old's Scalding Death
Then left the child to suffer in agony before death claimed the toddler.
Please, give this woman the death penalty.
A 2-Year-Old. Jesus.
ORANGE COUNTY, N.C. -- Authorities said Thursday that a 2-year-old girl who was scalded to death earlier this week might have suffered for hours without treatment before she died.
Jamie Lee Wilson, 21, was arrested and charged with first-degree murder in the death of Briana Faucette, who suffered second- and third-degree burns on more than 40 percent of her body.
"They were second- and third-degree burns caused by hot scalding water," said Orange County District Attorney Jim Woodall.
According to a search warrantreleased Thursday, investigators said Wilson told them that she spilled boiling water on the floor and that Briana sat in it.
But Woodall said Wilson has changed her story a number of times during the investigation and believes the little girl was put into a tub of hot water.
Deputies took a temperature sample of water in the home that measured 140 degrees.
Investigators also took several items from Wilson's home including clothing, hair and possibly skin found on a dog food bag.
Woodall said that Wilson did not just burn the toddler, but left her dying in the house for hours before calling for help. When paramedics arrived, they found Briana already dead.
Ending With a Smile
Though it’s still a crime, it’s also a hoot.
It’s fun to see criminals be so inept.
More True Crime Updates HERE
The Saga of the Slippers
There can be nothing more magical than Christmas to a two-year old. Although Kaitlyn, frankly, is as circumspect as ever and one can see her little brows furrow at this Santa Claus fellow and who on earth he is.
At the prompting of various and sundry relatives baby girl does, however, express excitement. For now, she knows not what this Santa Claus does and how on earth he’s going to get down a chimney when her home has no chimney.
Since Christmas requires that all visit hither and yon, this Grandmother went to visit Kaitlyn a few days before Christmas. Bringing along the gift Mom-Mom bought for baby girl, pictured below.
I spent the night at Kaitlyn’s house, spending some time with my own precious daughter and Kaitlyn’s father. It was at the appointed bedtime that Kaitlyn began the “saga of the slippers”.
Kaitlyn has never been much of a crier although make no mistake the child can curl that lower lip and cry with the best of them. It never lasts long, however, as Kaitlyn expects, and usually gets frankly, immediate gratification for whatever is making her cry. IF no gratification is forthcoming to ease her sobbing, Kaitlyn will usually resort to some other tactic to get her way.
She’s two years old and is, um, a bit willful. She’s at the age where she sees no reason why she shouldn’t get her way for as Kaitlyn sees it only she knows what will make Kaitlyn happy. Such as parents tend to put up obstacles in front of Kaitlyn’s desires and this requires that Kaitlyn work around the obstacles.
I was tipped off a bit when, earlier in the afternoon at Kaitlyn’s nap time, I heard Kaitlyn call out “I’m taking off my clothes.” A few minutes later my daughter came out of Kaitlyn’s room and informed us that Kaitlyn had, indeed, removed all of her clothes, even her diaper. This did alarm me in that it was a bit chilly and besides, why is she taking off her clothes?
“She started doing that until finally we had to let her take off her clothes. Then when she falls asleep we go in a re-dress her,” my daughter explained. At first, so my daughter informed me, they would panic when Kaitlyn took off her clothes and react by running in and re-dressing her. It became that, by use of the infamous disrobing technique, Kaitlyn had figured out a way to get her parents to respond. Thereby delaying her nap which is her intent.
It was later that night that Kailyn used the “slippers” technique to delay her bedtime. At first Kaitlyn cried. Mom-Mom was there and Kaitlyn saw no reason why she should have to go to bed just because she was tired, it was late and her lazy eye was all over the place. Kaitlyn’s Mom went in and concerned that perhaps Kaitlyn’s socks would not be sufficient to keep her feet warm, asked Kaitlyn if she wanted her slippers. Kaitlyn did NOT, at least then, want her slippers. She wanted to get up is what she wanted and slippers weren’t going to do it. So Mom didn’t get the slippers and closed the door to Kaitlyn’s room that she may continue her sobbing. As usual, the sobs soon stopped. It was on Kaitlyn to come up with another tactic.
“I want my schlippers,” she began to shout. “I want my schlippers”. My daughter looked at me and shrugged. “Well I did ask her if she needed her slippers so now I have to go in and put them on.” Which she did.
Soon my daughter comes out of Kaitlyn’s room, leaving Kaitlyn slippered and, ostensibly without complaints and ready to go to sleep.
“I’m taking them OFF,” came the warning from Kaitlyn’s room. “I’m taking the schlippers OFF.” This went on for about fifteen minutes as Kaitlyn continually warned everyone in the surround that she was removing the schlippers. “OFF,” the baby yelled, “I’m taking them OFF.”
Evidently this was meant to alarm her mother who had earlier went to the trouble of putting the slippers ON. Kaitlyn figured, as I surmise, that if her mother thought she needed the slippers than she’d put the fear of God into her mother and threaten to take them OFF.
My daughter and I giggled over the baby’s threats because it was rather comedic. Kaitlyn could care less about the slippers but she’s no fool, Kaitlyn Mae. Her mother put the things ON and Kaitlyn warned the world she was taking them OFF.
In due course the baby fell asleep as the slipper threats did not work.
Willful. They get willful at age two, testing and prodding and threatening. Their human brains are little learning machines, and they learn quick how to cajole and fool their parents. They want what THEY want and it’s no mind if what they want is bad for them. Such as avoiding bed and nap time until they’re slap happy.
Gotta admire the little human babies of the world. Of all the animals in the Kingdom, it is only the humans who master a language. Given enough time, they use the language, and their guile, to get their way.
If Mommy and Daddy let them.
More Kaitlyn posts HERE
On My Satire
Impreach President Bush NOW!
Oh, it's satire! I get it! Well, Jonathan Swifts reputation is secure: irony and aggravation sit heavily on the comic humor required for satire.
As I understand it, the argument is that Bush didn't break the law and anyway he did it for national security.
I think he did break the letter of the law. He was obliged to secure warrants for wiretaps, and in the interest of 'hot pursuit' efficacy he was allowed 72 hours headstart, after which he was obliged to secure the warrant. Now I think there is an argument to be made by Bush, tho I haven't heard it yet from that quarter, that goes like this: "Aw what the heck. We already did the wiretap, so what good does it do to go back and get the warrants after the fact?" The counter to that is that first of all It's The Law, and second, Why Not? You got your taps, now go finish up the paperwork! Gee whiz, you already got a grace period even before you started.
So then the question is: "what good does it do to get the retrospective paperwork?" The answer is: "accountability". The law has surrendered prior control of the process (for expediency) to a posteriori accountability, which is a big concession. Hey guys, the least you can do is honor this compromise because you always get the permit anyhow!
OK, so Bush broke the law. It's just a little law, isn't it? One must wonder, if it is such a little law why does Bush not just do it right? I think the answer is that Bush wants to see himself as accountable to no one. Above the law. And I think this is a greater sin than chasing interns around the Oval Office, and since we've already lowered the Impeachment Bar to that level it makes him eligible for impeachment. QED.
didn't get the bit about Wilson/Plame. Was it just egregious derision?
12:54 AMIf the Dems think they're going to be impeaching Bush on the NSA wiretaps they're even loonier than they have appeared to be so far. They are so many miles from any kind of impeachable offense here that they would need a freedom bus to get them there. The precedents support what Bush did in these instances and if they did manage to somehow swing an impeachment they'd turn Bush into a hero. Really dumb.
12:58 AMAny move on impeachment would require bipartisan support, so that ain't gonna happen unless Bush walks out to the podium with a wiretap around his neck, a bloody shirt in one hand, and a knife in the other (or something).
Conyers is actually trying to build a case for impeachment on a wide set of grounds, including misleading the public on pre-war intelligence and breaking a host of laws. See above on where that's going to go.
12:59 AMlike impeaching a president over a blowjob?
it would seem to me, that with FISA being the applicable Law here and the possibility of a violation involving the 4th and possibly 5th Amendments rather than a non-prosecuted "perjury" a slightly better legal argument could be made
not that i am in favor of persuing such a course of action, per se...
i'm just sayin'
01:04 AMYes, but in case you've forgotten, Conyers is a certified nutjob.
And Gonzo, you know that I know as well as you do that impeaching Clinton was a joke - but it wasn't over the blowjob, it was over lying about the blowjob.
A federal court already ruled FISA could be bypassed for security or urgency reasons back in 2002, so while FISA may apply, it's not ironclad by any means.
01:07 AMConyers isn't a nutjob, he just has different views than you, Mr. Nalle. I think he's an interesting guy, though he's further to the left than I.
*A federal court already ruled FISA could be bypassed for security or urgency reasons back in 2002*
a rational Thought...however one in return for you is that with the provision in FISA to gain a warrant up to 72 hours AFTER instigating a "tap" what possible reason could there be for NOT complying?
if it is vitally urgent, well then, tap away and you have up to 3 days to bring it before the Judge...there are even provisions to ensure that the entire proceedings remain secure (thus protecting any operational secrecy required)...
the record shows that since it's inception with around 2000 FISA authorized "taps" less than 10 (5 if memory serves), were rejected
so WHY not comply with the apparently applicable Law?
i can think of no good reason not to...clue me in if i missed something here
02:44 AMPatfish, I have got to say that I just loved your article. It is one of the only few that was both exiting and informative enough for me to actually complete. I usally give up on most of them for their dryness, political exaggerations and information and commentary that we have heard over and over again.
"If the Dems think they're going to be impeaching Bush on the NSA wiretaps they're even loonier than they have appeared to be so far."
Dave, if Hell freezes over and the Dems take over the House and Senate then it would be very likely.
The thing about Bush is that he is a Republican and most Republicans put the countries interests above their own. So he would resign, like Nixon did, so the country won't have to go through an impeachment hearing.
03:20 AMYeah, there's no political exaggerations here.
Is anyone surprised that Anthony loved an article that had pictues in it?
04:02 AMThis post had minor obvious exaggerations that were there to make a point and not meant to be the whole story and to be taken literally.
When I am talking about exaggerations on other posts I am talking about when they take one minor thing and twist and turn it and spice it up enough to make the story.
Patfish did not do that here. Patfish has a clear unexaggerated point.
December 21, 2005
07:15 AMGonzo says "like impeaching a president over a blowjob?"
No it's more like impeaching a president over perjury.
07:44 AMThank you Anthony for the kind words.
I did label the post as satire and I used satire as any fool can plainly see.
But the gist of the post is very clear and I'd argue very true.
They WANT to impeach Bush. They want to impeach a lawfully elected President who was elected by the largest majority...EVER. I would think even the Bush haters would take exception to the House of Lords trumping up some artificial drum beat to remove a lawfully elected President.
For someday the Bush haters will get their guy in office. Then it would be fair game on that guy. Please don't tell me Clinton and blow jobs. Clinton lied under oath; indeed he was disbarred for it. The opposition cheers when Scooter Libby gets indicted for the same thing, perhaps rightfully so. But quit changing the goal posts. We play football here in America. We're not idiots.
I've also read some more interesting info, out in the Blogosphere, about the NSA program that has their nads in a twitch. Some very, very intriguing stuff. Started by, let me make this CLEAR, Bill Clinton.
The real story behind the NSA flap is, indeed, potentially a real problem in terms of civil liberties. The House of Lords and House of Reps know about it, don't kid yourself. If Lord Rockefeller knows something trust that his NY Times speed dial is immediately put to use. I'll go out on a limb here and whisper that maybe he even told his Democratic colleagues.
It would seem, I'll try to summarize here, that there is a new technology that enables "data mining" of calls via telephone. Data mining done directly at the switchboard of the phone companies. The methodology involves voice recognition technology and the search for "key" phrases or terms.
Now I'm not as stupid as I look. I can see where the random application of this technology could potentially stomp all over the civil liberties of our own fine selves.
More than anything, I'd agree freely that this new technology should be open to congressional debate.
It should NOT be used to impeach President Bush and if any of you Bush haters disagree I really think you are lying. Bush is using an NSA program used by at least one President before him though he, through his many legal advisors, argue that the constitution and presidential power granted under the war powers act make such use legal.
Of course I know the Democrats are currently braying like the asses of their party icon. But if you don't believe they'd throw Bush out in a minute, even though the man did nothing more than protect Americans after its worst attack ever, I've got a bridge to sell you.
I'm doing more research on it and might do another post later. Just an FYI for now.
About my review of "Surface"
NBC's Surface is an amazing show.
I'm just sorry that you watched only one episode in the middle of it and pronounced yourself uninterested.
It's a really great show - and I'm not some dumb teenager or couch potato. I have rarely watched any of the major network shows, but this one hooked me.
Sorry you didn't see the potential, and I hope short-sighted reviews like yours don't hold sway at NBC, because it does seem that they often cancel shows with great potential for some unknown reason.
On the Apprentice
Now that the hoopla is over and Randal won the coveted title, it's interesting to look back on the many prognostications before the finale.
What's very interesting, for those who didn't know, is that Randal, by virtue of his "nay" to the suggestion, prevented Rebecca from ALSO sharing the title of The Donald's "Apprentice".
Nah. It's Rebecca all the way on the Donald's show. Randal's the nicest guy on Earth but I don't think he has the shark mentality that Rebecca does. He's a go-getter and a great manager to be sure, but Rebecca is hardcore in a way that he simply isn't. (Without being the psycho that Alla was.)
01:02 PMWhy woyuld you expect "Martha Style" tasks on Martha's Apprentice. Martha Stewart Omnimedia is a big business and it already has one domestic diva - they need managers.
Whta really killed Martha's Apprentice was two things - it came too late and it didn't have a unique hook. In the summer of 2005 alone we've had at least three "Apprentice wannabes" - The Cut, The Law Firm, and Hell's Kitchen - of which only Hell's Kitchen had a unique hook. If Burnett had been able to debut Martha's Apprentice the season after The Donald's version and before the wannabe's started showing up, it might well have succeeded.
11:05 PMIt came as absolutely no surprise to me that Randal won. Like he said, Rebecca writes about business, Randal runs businesses. And, clearly, he's quite successful at it.
Compare their records as project managers. Compare who was always drafted. Who was let go as a weak link?
I just wouldn't believe Rebecca, with her lack of business experience, as a credible executive. Randal is totally believeable as an executive. And he actually is one.
I also thought that he did the right thing by not recommending that Rebecca also be hired when Trump suggested that she could also be hired. Both candidates are excellent but there can only be one hired, just like in real life.
11:51 PMHow about Randal dissing Rebecca? The Donald gave Randal the choice of allowing him to also hire Rebecca, and Randal said no.
"It's called 'The Apprentice,' not 'The Apprenti," he said.
Although Randal has the better resume, I think Rebecca would have been the better choice. I don't see Randal as being a great future leader of the Trump Organization. I think Rebecca had that potential.
12:57 AMI think Rebecca was the better choice. And i dont think she would have dissed Randal like Randal did to her by not allowing the Trumpster to make her an apprentise too.
What should have happened is that after Randal said no to allowing Rebecca to become an apprentise with him, The Donald should have said ok ,well sinse you feel that way Randal..then Your fired...and Rebecca is the new apprentise...
Donald if you could only go back
03:25 AMThe Finale was a huge disappointment. Both candidates should have been hired. I won't watch another season of The Apprentice.
09:03 AMI agree with pb. But if Trump did that Al Sharpton and the NAACP would have been marching in front of Trump Tower this morning.
09:18 AMAlla was the best choice but reminded Trump of Ivana. Rebecca was the next best female choice and Randal represented the most politically correct choice especially considering who Trump has already hired in previous shows.
Yes, I know Randal has practical business experience starting and running consulting businesses. Consultants do little more (what do they make, what do they produce, what real value do they add????) than tell a company what it already knows. They prepare a slick looking Power Point presentation, print up some glossy handouts, collect a check and they're gone. Much different than than a real manufacturing company, construction firm or retail business. A consulting business has some of the lowest barriers to entry. A nice "business" to start for someone with 5 academic degrees.
11:41 AMI was pulling for Rebecca, but I came away thinking that Randall was the right choice, and that Randall was right in saying it was a one-person job interview. It would have lessened Randall's achievement if he had hired both. It's a one-winner game
02:15 PMI have to say, I thought that it was pretty low what randal did to Rebecca at the end of the show.
He was already chosen as the Apprentice, to keep her from the opportunity of working for Mr. Trump for no real reason, was unbelievable.
The title is The Apprentice, and he was chosen as The Apprentice, but if he didn't keep her from the job because of any risk of his standing, the only other reason was because of his ego.
I like randal, I wanted him to win, I just lossed all respect for him when he made that last poor judgement call.
02:46 PMHello people.....what's the problem. This is a show about competition. Randal if you recall won every time he was a project manager and let's not forget he won the last challenge.....so, what's the problem. Why can't you just accept the fact that Randal was the better of the two. Besides, if Donald Trump really wanted to hire Rebecca, why didn't he make that decision to do so. Randal won,fair and square, and it was the Donald that picked him, so all of those who make a omment about the NAACP marching in front of Trump Tower if it had been the other way around, I say get over it.
03:29 PMRandal did the right thing in not agreeing to have co-apprentices; after a 13-week challenge, it was unfair of Trump to suggest changing the rules arbitrarily while Randal should have been getting the same spotlight attention the previous 3 winners got.
I woulda told trump "hell no!" on hiring Rebecca, too. Fair is fair, and Randal made a better business decision than Trump would've; had Rebecca been hired, it would have diluted the integrity of the show big-time for next season.
04:11 PMDamn right.
12:05 PMBlack men usually stand behind "brothers" and "sisters." Had Rebecca been African-American, I have no doubt that Randal would have encouraged Trump to hire her as well. Instead, Randal indulged his considerable racism and revealed himself to be so incredibly and foolishly selfish.
01:10 PMThere is no double-winner in Survivor, so why should there be in The Apprentice? Can you name a reality show where there is the option to have two winners?
02:23 AMRandal made the right call. Trump was wrong to put him on the spot. EVERYONE in the competition made it clear that they were there to be the ONE chosen. As well, it was not a draw. Randal WON (he played the game better and had a far superior eductional and professional record)- though I will concede that he is not as pleasing to the eye as Rebecca. He did not tell Trump not to hire Rebecca. He said that on the night, there should be only one winner - and he was the clear winner. Business is business (which is the theme of show)and Rebecca's inclusion would have detracted from his victory. Randall made the right business decision by fully claiming what he had EARNED.
YOU ran a marathon and were the first to cross the line after a grueling race. Be it a slim margin of victory or a large one, how would you feel if the rules were arbitrarily changed to get your approval of the second-place finisher receiving an equal gold medal. Now imagine that marathon lasting your whole life. Competition is inherently discriminatory but the rules should be fair and consistent. Every metric showed that the man from Jersey (Randal) was superior to the lady from Minnesota (Rebecca) albeit some myopic viewers refuse to acknowledge this fact. Let me innumerate.
1) Randal was, by far, better educated
2) Randal was, by far, better experienced
3) Randal had a flawless record and more than equally contributed to Rebecca's only win
4) Randal actually produced charity for a CHARITY EVENT. This should not be overlooked - if this challenge had taken place 3 weeks earlier would there have been any question to Rebecca's firing. Donald might have fired her whole team all over again for good measure.
4) Randal had a hostile charity delegate that eventually was, herself, won over by his heart, professionalism and equanimity.
5) Randal also stood up for a weak candidate (Markus)- he voted for his exemption the first week and verbally supported him in another boardroom debriefing (Lamborghini challenge) -the only one to do so.
6) Randal's altruism was showcased when he was determined to assist Rebecca to her sole and only win. He said this in unequivocal terms.
7) He earned the love and support of virtually all of the candidates early on in the series. He maintained this support and admiration throughout a competitive environment. This alone speaks volumes of his value and charisma.
8) Randal was prescient. "I cannot see why you would not pick me to be your sole and only apprentice" he said early-on during the finale. This was meant to relay his strong belief in his win. (This was most likely why Donald deferred to him at the end of the show).
These points are incontestable and provide ample proof of his triumph. Accolades (a lesser win) must be extended to Rebecca but not at the expense of a triumph (greater victory).
As to Randal's response to Donald's inappropriately timed query -which effectively diminished the win while the victor had yet to set his arms down from a well won victory salute. The question should have never been asked in the first place.
Do I believe they were both qualified. Yes. Do you believe they were equally qualified.... see above.
05:20 PMFor heaven's sake! By what factual basis is Rebecca equal or nearly equal to Randal in management ability or competence? Those of you who think that Rebecca is on the same level as Randal either have very low standards or didn't watch all 13 episodes.
Rebecca lost every task in which she was PM, except the one where she was in a 2-person team with Randal and he was instrumental in helping her to win that task. Not to mention that the last task was about raising money for the charity and not only did Rebecca not raise ANY money, but at the event her charity got one measly sign and an envelope in the gift bag! That's it. Randal's sponsor told him not to ask the bigwigs for money too but he ignored them. Also, her team once traded her because she was a weak player. ------- If you can ignore all those facts and still look at someone with such a terrible performance record and say they are equal to someone like Randal who was UNDEFEATED as PM, then it's clear you are full of crap.
Then you say that "Randal would have lost nothing by hiring Rebecca." Give me a break - he would have lost his self-respect. Since no other apprentice winner was asked that question, it was inappropriate to ask Randal, especially for such an inferior opponent. Also, Randal wasn't hired as VP of Trump's Personnel Department. If Trump still thought Rebecca was pretty enough to hire despite her losing record, then he was free to hire her after the show. It was inappropriate for him to raise the matter when he did.
The only reason Rebecca was in the finale was because Trump went on a firing rampage this season and fired all of Randal's real competition. She made it to the final 2 by sheer luck, not ability.
05:35 PMGood point about what would have happened if, weeks earlier, they had the competition to raise money for charity and one team raised no money. Trump would have fired the PM and very likely others on the team, if not the entire team.
The week that Trump fired four people at once, he brought some drama to the show, but he also made it easier on the remaining contestants.