Teenager who killed her pimp in 1994 is set free after Arnie commuted sentence

Aoxomoxoa said:
Not murder, justifiable homicide.
Click to expand...

How is it justifiable homicide and please stick with the excepted definition and not the one that everyone wants to use to justify everything else; because she lured him to the meeting where she killed and then robbed him?
 
Big money said:
From your source:

Kruzan said Howard had raped, molested and subjugated her starting when she was 11, then shopped her as a teen prostitute.

Kruzan lured him to the Dynasty Suites on Iowa Avenue in Riverside, shot him in the neck with a pistol, stole $1,500 from his pocket and took his Jaguar.

She testified during her trial that Howard’s rival had threatened her life if she didn’t carry out the crime.
Click to expand...

So what are we arguing anyway? I, along with the court, believe that she was groomed and used by a pimp. I agree that she murdered him and deserved to be punished for it. What I don't agree is that life without possibility of parole was justice and the CA Supreme Court agreed. She's been in custody for 18 years.

Sorry but I can't look at this case with blinders on. There were too many extenuating circumstances and legal errors all along the line. She should have been tried as a juvie. Not saying she shouldn't have been punished, just that the punishment was cruel and unusual.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
How is it justifiable homicide and please stick with the excepted definition and not the one that everyone wants to use to justify everything else; because she lured him to the meeting where she killed and then robbed him?
Click to expand...

In the same way that a slave would be entitled to kill his or her owner.
 
not sure what you mean tom, your visitor message....but this is legal in CA. i believe it was in the late or mid 80's that CA citizens voted to give the governor the power of review for inmates up for parole. if an inmate, like here, is found suitable for parole, then the decision of the parole board, whether negative or positive, must go before the governor. and in this case, brown believes she is suitable for parole.
 
Yurt said:
not sure what you mean tom, your visitor message....but this is legal in CA. i believe it was in the late or mid 80's that CA citizens voted to give the governor the power of review for inmates up for parole. if an inmate, like here, is found suitable for parole, then the decision of the parole board, whether negative or positive, must go before the governor. and in this case, brown believes she is suitable for parole.
Click to expand...

No I was thinking about the original case and how she was sentenced to life without parole as a juvenile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top