Dancer Burned Alive Outside L.A. Club

Pretty sick.

When ever I read of these horrific stories I always consider the supposed good guys aka government. And think, is it any sicker than jailing a 19 year old for buying beer (he used fake ID as if that is important) to be raped and murdered. Another example is the homeless woman who allegedly stole $75 worth of food from a would be lover and received a 15 year sentence. The trial judge thought it was reasonable because the homeless woman refused a plea deal. Heaven forbid she wants a trial.

Evil is plentiful-----stripclubs or not.

I have to agree with you. Places like strip clubs attract certain elements to them. Instead of dealing with the problem, i.e. actual police work, the police are sent off on wild goose chases like marijuana and enforcing racial quotas.

Police are there to Protect the People, that is IT, but more and more they are being used to accomplish political goals or to protect the Rich from the Poor people they are using.

For the record tho, there are still a lot of good Cops despite all the bad ones and the people who burned this girls alive will probably end up 'resisting arrest' and getting shot.

I think most cops are good----I don't know that because I try and keep my distance, the last many years, knowing that the supposed protections from government are mainly illusory. If you believe that you have rights, then you need more time a in a government meat grinder. Gambling dancer of all people told that she had rights. I laughed and said really??? I didn't notice that you had any rights behind bars or in court. She said well, I need to pretend that I have rights otherwise it is too depressing. She is very good at pretending.

Also, good cops can easily be corrupted by the law. For example, I saw a police video of these 2 young white Southern police officers arresting white women on marijuana charges. Their glee and pride at being "successful" i.e. making an arrest was disgusting. The police first and foremost are supposed to protect women and children----the old fashioned putting of women on a pedestal. The officers that I knew were interested in helping people (assuming the people involved were white) and used an arrest as a last resort. Keeping the peace and protecting the weak was paramount and enforcing the law was way down on the list. Law is for money grubbers in the courts i.e. lawyers and judges. The police that I knew wanted to keep people out of jail. Now it is a prison state where police get extra payola from the government to make arrests and wage war against ordinary folks.

just wondering if you know WHY those two people decided to do such a horrible thing to this dancer? There may be some sort of drug trade, gambling, etc. involved in this horrific crime.

here is a news link with a photos of the two criminals.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20…

The drug war does lead to murders and ruined lives and corruption et al, but even without drugs or the government's drug war people are capable of some fairly horrific crimes.

Over in Hallandale an old man hired a couple thugs with money he didn't even have to pour acid on a man whose "crime" was using a condo walk path to get to the beach; it was a vicious attack. The repeated lesson is that life is cheap and real caring is as rare as "real patriotism" is abundant. How many years in prison should a teenager get for having consensual oral sex with another teenager-----I'll ignore any government legalisms and bullocks that purport to claim teenagers can't give consent or their consent isn't relevant as just another example of government evil doing. Well, some "good" people would think the appropriate punishment would be to cut the teenager's tongue out while other "good" people would think 5 years in prison is reasonable.

I think an hour in jail for the oral sex would be a harsh punishment.

This shows evil is alive and well in our government laws, among people out in public etc. I don't believe people should be jailed for consensual sex. Now if they are underage, parents can punish their kid but I don't believe it should be handled in our court system and have taxpayers pay to keep the offenders locked away behind bars at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars each year. Forced sex is a different story.

This burning is a terrible story.

Every time I hear of something like this I just want to know one thing.... WHY?

Why did they do this? Was it because one or both of the dudes wanted to date this dancer OTC and she refused?

Or, was it because they felt they were ripped off by this girl and they wanted revenge.


I just have to wonder what is going on in the minds of these thugs that provokes them to do something like this.

About ten years ago there was a young man who broke into a house and beat an elderly man in the head with a baseball bat until he was dead. There was no robbery. No revenge. When asked by the authorities why he did it, he replied, "I just wanted to see what it would be like to kill somebody.

"The suspects were identified as Rianne Celine Theriault-Odom, 27, and Nathaniel Marquis Petrillo, 22." http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/20…


One of the suspects is a woman (Ms. Theriault-Odom) and possibly worked at the club.

"This shows evil is alive and well in our government laws, among people out in public etc. I don't believe people should be jailed for consensual sex."

I'd like to think if the government was less brutal and sadistic, then it would filter down to the people. It seems like most people are willing to overlook or cheer the evil doing by government in the name of "real patriotism" or perhaps it is just a smart survival strategy to run with the master and the herd.

Only one of the suspects is a "dude". If you check out the names and the link with photos one of the suspects is an unattractive gal (Rianne Celine...). Article mentions she may have worked at the club at one time.

One of my relatives spoke about his dropping bombs and how proud he was to serve his country. I asked if ever felt bad about the civilians who suffered. He said he never gave it a second thought because he wasn't close to the destruction. He said perhaps if he could see or knew the victims, then it might be a lot different.

So you drop a bomb that wipes out a family leaving 10 dead and 1 blind and a child with all 4 limbs needing to be amputated. You get a medal and your government considers you a hero. Gee, is there really much difference between that and setting a stripper who you revile on fire? I'm asking. Maybe the social approval of the former makes it acceptable while social disapproval of the latter makes it not only unacceptable, but truly evil and heinous.

It's pretty disgusting what humans can talk themselves into doing, on the battlefield or not. (Not that I'm any better. I'd probably be just as likely to get talked into it if I were part of the military, too.) Civilian deaths and injuries in wartime are on an all-time high, and rising. American-inflicted injuries in Iraq are just the next step in a horrible progression. World War II was really the watershed-mark, the point where we started making the connection between industrial infrastructure and military output, and therefore allowed ourselves to think that damage to cities as a whole was a viable or effective tactic. In the American Civil War, some generals took on the idea of damaging civilian infrastructure (Sherman going after the railroads and plantations, etc.) but usually individual civilian human lives and limbs were spared. Maybe it's all just a function of the long-distance nature of the weaponry. Now'days we can inflict it all from 1000 a miles away.

The Wall Street Journal did more than a few pieces about the Massachusetts Supreme Court. In one of the pieces it was opined that the justices couldn't send an innocent man to spend his life in prison if they had to slam the prison door shut personally. I laughed and thought the journal had no idea what type of nasty filthy evil creatures sit on the Massachusetts Supreme Court. That scum would rejoice in personally slamming prison door shut.

The journal made the common mistake of thinking because they value freedom and human life that of course an erudite judge would feel the same. It is just basic humanity 101. The journal needs to be reading some court opinions because the filth ain't hidden. People are savages whether in government or on the street and I think most people just want to follow whoever is strongest at the moment in a given time and place.

Don Landry, who I've written about seemed like an extremely high quality person. The more that I got to know him the more I liked him. He was 100% pro-America and given his experiences it was easy to see why he was so in love with America. The problem was that because he had dealt with some high quality individuals in the military and later in the private sector, he thought that was universal----part of being an American. Well, he got a taste of the court system and suddenly he gets a real slap in the face. He can't even believe it. I can't believe that he can't believe! I'm thinking where the hell has this man been to be so innocent . . .

Was the U.S. military that wonderful? According to him, he served with people who he had the highest respect for. He didn't see open corruption and abuse. I tend to lump the military along with the rest of the government and think that his eyes were closed because he was being well treated.

"I'd probably be just as likely to get talked into it if I were part of the military, too.) Civilian deaths and injuries in wartime are on an all-time high, and rising. American-inflicted injuries in Iraq are just the next step in a horrible progression."

Unfortunately, I think that I'd probably follow orders in deference to authority. Some historians blame democracy for a greater willingness to kill "peasants" i.e. non-combatants. The reasoning being that is that if the peasants support your enemy why not kill 'em? In the days of old it was asserted [by some historians] that hostile feelings didn't exist against the common folks because common folks just wished to avoid getting killed by one side or the other.

History is a funny game . . . President Bush could be seen as the best thing since chocolate cake or he may go down as one the worst presidents ever. Will later judgments be more or less accurate . . .