Something here doesn’t make any sense to me.
OK, so these two losers follow a lady and her daughter home from the grocery store, break into the house in the middle of the night, and by the time it’s all over the lady and both her daughters are dead, and the father is nearly so. Oh, and the house is on fire, and these guys are trying to run over cops with a stolen car.
More info here.
What information exists now indicates that these two guys were non-violent offenders. The younger one was a cat burglar. The elder had a drug conviction. Neither had a history of violence.
What the fuck happened to make them escalate like this????
I mean, one day you’re a parolee in a halfway house coming off a conviction for burglary. The next day you’re raping an 11 year old girl, strangling her mother, and then lighting the whole lot of them on fire.
I mean, shit. The crime was bad enough to induce shock. But it could at least be explained if these guys were repeat violent offenders. And by explained I don’t mean excused. I mean we could easily explain the level of violence displayed if these guys were previously convicted for murder, attempted murder, rape, arson. There’s a certain amount of recidivism there. But this? If you can figure it out, tell me.
For what it’s worth, these two pieces of shit need to fry. I realize that last sentence disqualifies me from jury duty. I don’t really care. This happened 15 miles from my house. I went to school with relatives of Dr. Petit. This is a little too close to home for me to be objective about.