Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Sad story in Wyoming

Never should have stopped.

Judge: You have been found guilty and are sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence will be carried out in 3 days at noon. If you wish to appeal the decision you must submit by tomorrow at noon. If you do so the appeal will be heard the following morning.

Defendant: I will file an appeal.

Judge: Thank you, Your appeal is denied. Bailiff, take him to the gallows.

Defendant: That ain’t right!

Judge: It is in my court. Bailiff!

After two days, STILL absolutely no information available about how the baby got dead and in the dumpster. Nothing at all. Either the Cheyenne news org's are dropping the ball or the police have completely shut it down.

i believe this should be done again in America forever >> hang`em

Perhaps it's an on going investigation and you're not entitled to know anything.

Perhaps it's an on going investigation and you're not entitled to know anything.

So, the people of Cheyenne are not entitled to know there is some jerk running around killing babies and throwing them in a dumpster?

You sound like a cop and/or a democrat.

How would that be the case? Who actually has the right and authority to decide what the public is entitled to know about such a grievous situation? Where is that specifically stated?

Probably within the policy of the investigating agency. If the public needs to know, they'll be informed (if safety is an issue). If it's an on going case, especially of such importance, they probably want to do it by the book. Which doesn't include releasing every detail of the case prior to an arrest.

We need to start back hanging these perpetrators on the courthouse square. They cannot be rehabilitated and demonstrating what happens...might save another child’s life.

"Probably" is too vague an answer for most of this. Yes, the LEOs through their "procedures" have the power to suppress or keep info secret during the ubiquitous "ongoing investigation", but too often they do that because they can and not because it is the best thing to do, or legally prudent for the public. If you want a powerful example, look at the event involving the Las Vegas shooter/mass murderer. He was dead at the scene and no one else ever was charged with any direct involvement - but most of the info of interest to the tax-paying public was withheld and withheld.

And that situation has nothing to do with the one we're discussing. It's OK that you don't know what you speak of, but stop acting like you do.

Is there some reason you need to know all the details other than just being curious? What good would it do for you to know the ongoing details? "Right to know" has no bearing on need to know.

Very good question. Personally, I don't feel the need to know "all of the details" in the general run of instances. I have very little curiosity about gory stuff or other folks' personal details. It is a matter of principle. It has to do with the undue management and withholding of information in general. Similar to bristling when there is an accident on Interstate 15 and they LEOs shut the whole thing down for hours to enable their "investigation" and maneuvers - apparent attempts at justification of their paychecks and certainly a display of "authority" - instead of simply getting the vehicles off the highway safely and opening the road. Yes - I have heard it - 'investigation for the insurance lawyers." Contrast the current disruptive tactics with the sensible way such things were done 40 years ago. Principle is involved. By the way - and I disagree - right to know has huge bearing in those instances when one needs to know. I do appreciate your inquiry.