Killer Hippies Convicted of Murder

  • Thread starter Thread starter russ_watters
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A couple in Georgia, Lamont Thomas and Jade Sanders, were sentenced to life in prison after their 6-week-old son, Crown Shakur, died from malnutrition, weighing only 3.5 pounds. The parents primarily fed him soy milk and apple juice, neglecting his nutritional needs. Defense attorneys argued that the couple did not realize the danger their son was in until shortly before his death. The prosecution, however, emphasized that the child died due to intentional neglect rather than their vegan lifestyle, stating that the couple attempted to use their dietary choices as a defense against prosecution. The case sparked a debate about the responsibilities of vegan parents and the implications of adhering strictly to dietary ideologies without proper nutritional knowledge. Many participants in the discussion criticized the parents for their ignorance and lack of care, asserting that proper child-rearing requires informed decision-making, regardless of dietary beliefs.
russ_watters
Mentor
Insights Author
Messages
23,691
Reaction score
11,130
At the risk of starting another veganism debate, I had to post this because it may just be the most distubing thing I've read in months:
Vegan parents in Georgia were sentenced Wednesday to life in prison after their 6-week-old son died of malnutrition.

The baby, Crown Shakur, weighed only 3.5 pounds. He'd been fed mostly soy milk and apple juice. Vegans typically do not consume animal products.

Defense lawyers say the first-time parents did the best they could for their son while adhering to the strict lifestyle of vegans. They said Sanders and Thomas did not realize the baby -- who was born in a bathtub at their home -- was in danger until minutes before he died in April of 2004.

Jurors deliberated about seven hours before convicting the couple last week. Lamont Thomas, 31, and Jade Sanders, 27, were convicted of malice murder, felony murder, involuntary manslaughter and cruelty to children.
http://www.nbc10.com/news/13286030/detail.html

The good news (if you can call it that) is that the courts acted appropriately and treated them just like any other murderers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Truly disgusting.
 
Were they really vegans? I know they profess to be, but that's very ignorant. The vegans I know are much more informed and reasonable than that.
 
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence
 
the parents are crazy they're bringing up their child to be a vegan... i mean what if their kid doesn't want that, let the kid make up it's own choices after it's grown up (like 20) and knows the difference and has taken all the essential nutrients for an average growing human... but i guess it's too late now
 
Office_Shredder said:
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence

I don't think super intelligence is much needed to raise a child in a healthy manner. You don't have to go far to find Vegans who are possibly less educated, yet will make better decisions than those two did.
 
Office_Shredder said:
Being a vegan doesn't automatically grant people super intelligence

Of course if doesn't. On the contrary, it automatically lowers their intelligence.
 
Mallignamius said:
I don't think super intelligence is much needed to raise a child in a healthy manner. You don't have to go far to find Vegans who are possibly less educated, yet will make better decisions than those two did.
Well that's just it: it does require a significant amount of extra effort to successfully raise a child that way and as such requires quite a bit of intelligence.

Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it instinctively.

But stupidity driven by religious belief is not a defense for murder, which is why the decision/punishment is appropriate.
 
Last edited:
Legally, the definition of "malice murder" seems a bit contradictory as it talks about both intent to kill and recless disregard for consequences. It certainly fits the reckless disregard criteria, though.
Murder or "malice murder" occurs when an individual unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another person. Malice aforethought is defined as an intention to kill another human being. Therefore, in order to be convicted of malice murder, the state must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim. This intent may be found in the defendant’s actions toward the victim (i.e., threats, etc.), in his use of a deadly weapon, or in the defendant’s acts which exhibit a reckless disregard for human life.
http://www.georgiacriminaldefense.com/georgia-violent-crimes.html
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it.

Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.
 
  • #11
russ_watters said:
Well that's just it: it does require a significant amount of extra effort to raise a child that way and as such requires quite a bit of intelligence.

Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever. Every other animal does it instinctively.

But stupidity driven by religious belief is not a defense for murder, which is why the decision/punishment is appropriate.

I was responding to the exaggeration of "super intelligence." And, in so many words, this is my attempt at shunning those criminal parents.

As much as I respect vegetarianism, even I, without yet a college education and very ignorant on raising children, wouldn't bring an infant into that lifestyle.
 
  • #12
Mallignamius said:
I was responding to the exaggeration of "super intelligence." And, in so many words, this is my attempt at shunning those criminal parents.

As much as I respect vegetarianism, even I, without yet a college education and very ignorant on raising children, wouldn't bring an infant into that lifestyle.


The super intelligence was just to respond to your comment

Were they really vegans? I know they profess to be, but that's very ignorant. The vegans I know are much more informed and reasonable than that.

It sounds like you think if someone is a vegan, it means they're informed and reasonable automatically. I agree, these people are dumb, but that doesn't mean they aren't vegans
 
  • #13
Artman said:
Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.
Is that seriously their logic? Even if the "animal" is a human? I didn't know that.
 
  • #14
Artman said:
Breast feeding would be animal product. Nature's way to feed an infant and they oppose it. Shows the fallacy of their lifestyle.

Yeah, that's if you're a strict vegetarian. Some vegetarians are just whackos in my opinion. Most don't even have a good reason to be vegetarian although you don't need one.

For example, I don't eat pork or beef. So, that's like almost vegetarian. I do it because I'm not fond of the way they raise pork or beef, environmental reasons and health. I don't like love animals to the point that I can't eat a cow.
 
  • #16
russ_watters said:
Is that seriously their logic? Even if the "animal" is a human? I didn't know that.

Not for all of them. My one vegetarian friend isn't like that.

But I do have a vegetarian friend who probably thinks that. She doesn't eat anything "living". No milk, eggs, or even cheese.
 
  • #17
Office_Shredder said:
The super intelligence was just to respond to your comment
Well, I know that. But it was an exaggeration.

It sounds like you think if someone is a vegan, it means they're informed and reasonable automatically. I agree, these people are dumb, but that doesn't mean they aren't vegans

I didn't mean it to come across like that. No, I don't think that vegan = automatically informed & reasonable. I mean, it's not fair to call oneself a physicist if they aren't schooled or have the appropriate degree. I doubt it's fair to call oneself a vegan if they aren't following the practice/lifestyle appropriately, misinformed, etc. If they can be called vegans, then I'd call them ignorant, misguided vegans. Do they really represent the vegan population? Is this what vegans do?

I just don't want a few criminals to become a symbol of the vegan ideals. And I'm already seeing some questionable prejudgment assigned to vegans as a whole. I don't think that's fair.
 
  • #18
JasonRox said:
Not for all of them. My one vegetarian friend isn't like that.

But I do have a vegetarian friend who probably thinks that. She doesn't eat anything "living". No milk, eggs, or even cheese.
Vegetarians aren't vegans. There's a distinct difference.
 
  • #19
you people don't live here in georgia do you? that story was just one of a long series of crazy stuff that happens here all the time. a few months back the police lied to get a no knock drug warrant, busted down a frightened and innocent old ladies door, shot her to death when she fought back, and then threatened an informant to lie and say he had bought drugs there.

a couple years ago the previous sheriff gave a couple million of the county's money to a con man to invest and lost it all.

before that, the incumbent sheriff who was turned out of office by an honest subordinate in the election hired a hit man who then murdered the incoming sheriff.

worse, the incoming sheriff had already resigned his county job, in anticipation of being sheriff, so the county denied his widow his death pay.

in clayton cty, the new sheriff there fired all the incumbent officers, and stationed snipers on the roof of the courthouse when they came back to get their severance pay.

you have no doubt heard that the last japanese defender on some pacific island only gave up after 50 years. that's nothing, many people here are still fighting the civil war.

it goes on and on...
 
Last edited:
  • #20
The fact that these people were vegans is not directly what killed their baby. It is the fact that they were clinging, inflexably, to a rigid dogma. Many babies have died similarly, and their parents were not "hippie vegans."

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/roundups/article_1300471.php/News_Roundup
Prosecutors charged the infant`s death had nothing to do with veganism but instead was the result of intentional neglect and underfeeding.

They accused the couple of trying to use their lifestyle as a shield against prosecution.

A couple of years ago, I believe it was near Providence, a child died due to the parents belief in "laying on of hands." They were quite a conservative family, but no less malicious nor murderous in the end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
no these were not hippies at all, just very unintelligent and rigid people. i thought this thread was about charles manson or someone.

we have a lot of dumb parents here. there was a whole church brought up a while back for incredibly severe corporal punishment of their children, ordered by the pastor.

others lock them in closets. it is difficult to believe some things that go on.

i myself once took my children to macdonald's.

some people here still use slide rules. (for computation, not punishment)
 
Last edited:
  • #22
Chi Meson said:
The fact that these people were vegans is not directly what killed their baby. It is the fact that they were clinging, inflexably, to a rigid dogma. Many babies have died similarly, and their parents were not "hippie vegans."
That's absurd, there was no rigid dogma, they were just bloody vegans that, personal intelligence aside, made the mistake of not asking a nutritionist about proper vegan childhood nutrition.

What are you talking about "clinging", "inflexably", I saw no evidence of that in the article. Do you have another source for this story your not sharing with us?

Hey Look! It's the very next paragraph in the article AFTER above quote:

Prosecutors claimed the baby suffered a prolonged and painful death, not because of what he was fed, but because he was fed too little and that his nutritional needs were deliberately ignored by his parents.

oh no! :eek:

Reading the whole article is good.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
mathwonk said:
i myself once took my children to macdonald's.

Bring them there once a week and that should be considered murder if your kid dies.
 
  • #24
russ_watters said:
Just feeding an infant the normal way (breast-feeding) requires no intelligence whatsoever.
Ummm... Russ, you ever try it? From what I've heard, there's a reason that serious books have been written on "the art of breast-feeding"

Every other animal does it instinctively.

Every other animal has a hell of a lot more developed instincts that the human does.

But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)
 
  • #25
The baby died from neglect- in this case malnutrition. Just happened that the parents were vegans.
As for the vegan movement, I think the vegan movement was originally started by and supported by many of those people who are highly lactose intolerant genetically and genetically prone to be also wheat intolerant. So one can pretty much sense who started the nonsense...like much other nonsense. Just because some people are milk intolerant and wheat intolerant, they claim that dairy and wheat products are bad for everyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #26
[PLAIN said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6642543.stm]But[/PLAIN] prosecutors in the US city of Atlanta said the couple had deliberately neglected their child.

"No matter how many times they want to say, 'We're vegans, we're vegetarians,' that's not the issue in this case," Prosecutor Chuck Boring is quoted by the Associated Press news agency as saying.

"The child died because he was not fed. Period," he said.

The prosecutor seems to argue that the cause of death was predominantly neglect and that the defense used the vegan lifestyle as a smoke screen.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
mathwonk said:
no these were not hippies at all, just very unintelligent and rigid people. i thought this thread was about charles manson or someone.

No kidding. I think someone has a highly skewed [absurd] perspective.

I have known a number of vegans, and most were engineers.
 
Last edited:
  • #28
Ivan Seeking said:
No kidding. I think someone has a highly skewed [absurd] perspective.

I have known a number of vegans, and most were engineers.

Well, of Course! Is there anyone you know that isn't an engineer?
 
  • #29
mbrmbrg said:
But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)

There are vegan doctors, hell, you don't even have to go to a doctor, any nutritionist will do, and there are Vegan nutritionists. These people just didn't try. And that's why their in jail.
 
  • #30
Originally Posted by mbrmbrg
But yeah, your basic point stands. How dumb do you have to get to watch your baby starve to death over 6 1/2 weeks and not call somebody's mom to ask what's up? (Benifit of doubt--maybe can't afford a doctor/think doctors chop off rats' heads therefore can't be a good vegan and go to doctor.)
There are vegan doctors, hell, you don't even have to go to a doctor, any nutritionist will do, and there are Vegan nutritionists. These people just didn't try. And that's why their in jail.

Exactly. My doctor line was rather tongue in cheek, and why I suggested a mother. You don't need to be a nutritionist to look at a baby that weighs about 1.5 kg and say "Gee, something wrong here."
Who taught these people how to change a diaper? I'm sure they would have been happy to teach them how to keep a kid alive, also!
 
  • #31
lunarmansion said:
The baby died from neglect- in this case malnutrition. Just happened that the parents were vegans.
As for the vegan movement, I think the vegan movement was originally started by and supported by many of those people who are highly lactose intolerant genetically and genetically prone to be also wheat intolerant. So one can pretty much sense who started the nonsense...like much other nonsense. Just because some people are milk intolerant and wheat intolerant, they claim that dairy and wheat products are bad for everyone.

Yeah, that is IF it originally came from highly lactose intolerant and wheat intolerant people. I doubt this is the case.
 
  • #32
It is more important that a vegan breastfeed a baby than a nonvegan because there are no fully nutritional vegan formulas.

http://www.vegfamily.com/babies-and-toddlers/breastfeeding-vegan-baby.htm"

Most of you probably know how important it is to breastfeed your baby, but it's even more important when you're vegan. As of this writing there are no commercial soy infant formulas on the U.S. market that are 100% vegan. They all contain Vitamin D derived from an animal. And cow's milk formulas are out for obvious reasons. What does that leave you with? Not much choice. If you want your baby to be vegan, you've got to breastfeed or find a milk bank that has collected and stored milk from a vegan mom (difficult at best).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
mbrmbrg said:
From what I've heard, there's a reason that serious books have been written on "the art of breast-feeding"
That speaks to ignorance, not lack of intelligence. The practice not only predates books, it predates humans.
 
  • #34
It never ceases to amaze me that you need a license to drive, a permit to build a shed on your own property, a dog or cat license, but any moron who wants one, or accidently gets pregnant, can have a kid.
 
  • #35
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO. If you don't want to eat it for health resons, I can understand. But if you think your saving the animals and all that other BS your an idiot.

Im glad they got sent to prison for their stupidity.
 
  • #36
Smurf said:
That's absurd, there was no rigid dogma, they were just bloody vegans that, personal intelligence aside, made the mistake of not asking a nutritionist about proper vegan childhood nutrition.

What are you talking about "clinging", "inflexably", I saw no evidence of that in the article. Do you have another source for this story your not sharing with us?

Hey Look! It's the very next paragraph in the article AFTER above quote:



oh no! :eek:

Reading the whole article is good.
Hmm... I think you misunderstood me, but then again I was not too clear with my point. Here's my reasoning. My assumption is the following: The parents are idiots yet they really were unaware of the damage they were doing until it was too late. This leads me to believe that they were enveloped in a rigid set of rules (I dunno, they read a book maybe, about the greatness of soy) and if they were following these rules then there must not be any problem because they were following the rules.

I do not think they should even be called vegans for that matter, because that word implies a deeper knowledge of nutritian.

And I usually do read articles to their fullest extent. I'd appreciate being given the benefit of that doubt even if my point is poorly formed in haste:wink:
 
  • #37
cyrusabdollahi said:
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO.
I'm a meatatarian myself, but there is a cost for living so high on the food chain. Does anyone here care to work out the implications of meat eating on global warming? All those animals blowing C02 into the atmosphere. Would you cut down on or cut out meat eating to save the environment if it could be shown that there was a connection?
 
  • #38
cyrusabdollahi said:
Vegetarianism/Veganism is all stupid IMO. If you don't want to eat it for health resons, I can understand. But if you think your saving the animals and all that other BS your an idiot.

Im glad they got sent to prison for their stupidity.
It's the neglect, more than the stupidity, that bothers me. I certain that parents of much lower intelligence can raise a child better than that. This is the "rigidity" that I referred to before: a parent has to willfully ignore dozens of warning signs befroe a child is that foregone. This goes beyond stupidity. If a parent has any love for their child at all, then this willfull neglect has to be fueled by some errant, dogmatic structure.

Again, for the record, I have no beef against veganism (sorry). I maintain that these people subscribed to some fringe crackpot variation of a meatless diet.
 
  • #39
jimmysnyder said:
That speaks to ignorance, not lack of intelligence. The practice not only predates books, it predates humans.

Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
 
  • #40
jimmysnyder said:
I'm a meatatarian myself, but there is a cost for living so high on the food chain. Does anyone here care to work out the implications of meat eating on global warming? All those animals blowing C02 into the atmosphere. Would you cut down on or cut out meat eating to save the environment if it could be shown that there was a connection?

No. I eat animals because they are tasty I am top of the food chain, sucks for the ones on the bottom, that's life.
 
  • #41
mbrmbrg said:
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
There are billions of women. How many such books?
 
  • #42
Chi Meson said:
Again, for the record, I have no beef against veganism (sorry). I maintain that these people subscribed to some fringe crackpot variation of a meatless diet.

I think they are just as foolish as someone that goes to chuch (mosque, synagog, tack your pick) every sunday, and shakes when god talks to them. :bugeye:

Edit: Women now need books on breastfeeding? :smile: Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
cyrusabdollahi said:
I am top of the food chain, sucks for the ones on the bottom, that's life.
No question, but what about the implications for global warming?
 
  • #44
Dear god, your right! All those stupid farting cows are warming the ozone. We should kill them all! :smile:


...farting anmials aint warming up the globe. Its the farting animals driving SUVs we got to eliminate.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
mbrmbrg said:
Either way, it's something that women don't just "know how to do".
Uhm, yes they do. The books are a scam to make money. I never read a book and I had no trouble. it doesn't take too long to realize which end of the kid to hold to your breast, trust me, the kid takes over instantly.
 
  • #46
cyrusabdollahi said:
Its the farting animals driving SUVs we got to eliminate.
You are high on the food chain. That doesn't just mean that you eat things that don't eat you. It also means that the things you eat eat other things. It takes a lot of grain to feed the cattle. The grain is created with tractors. It's not just you and the cow, its an ecosystem. I ask again. Would you give up or cut back on eating meat if it could be shown that there was a connection between meat eating and global warming?
 
  • #47
Nope, because there is no connection. Thats really a far stretch. The fact is, we use far more chemicals on growing plants than on animals. All that plant runoff goes right into the water systems.
 
  • #48
cyrusabdollahi said:
Nope, because there is no connection. Thats really a far stretch. The fact is, we use far more chemicals on growing plants than on animals. All that plant runoff goes right into the water systems.
And the cows eat it. And you eat the cow. If we ate less meat, we would grow less grain. We are high on the food chain.
 
  • #49
The vast majority of plantfoods grown around the world go to feeding people and not animals. There are 9 billion people, not 9 billion cows.

Sure, the cows require a lot of plant food, but then again you would have to grow that much plant food to replace the lost food by not eating the cow anyways. Either way, you're going to grow lots of grain. Might as well enjoy eating the cows while your at it.


...besides, who could give up steak and eggs!:!)
 
Last edited:
  • #50
cyrusabdollahi said:
you would have to grow that much plant food to replace the lost food by not eating the cow anyways.
No you wouldn't. That's my point.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top