Comments on: Alameda Teen’s Killer Given Life Sentence

By: Dave J

Dave J — Sun, 21 Nov 2010 06:39:52 +0000

You missed the point of Souldogdave. The issue is with the use of “…Killer Given Life Sentence” in the headline, while you state “[killer] could face life in prison…” in the second paragraph. The headline and body appear to contradict each other. The reader can’t help but feel deceived by the headline.
__________

Re: “If Tony was found not guilty, for the rest of my life I would be suffering.”

After the sentencing when her suffering remains, she’ll likely find that no amount of revenge will ease it.

So sad. I had forgotten about this until your blog post. Agreed this hit the heart of every decent Alameda citizen hard. I am glad the culprit will be sequestered, not to pay for what they did, but to keep them from influencing a single other person on the planet with their broken sense of reality, at least until it is matured and fixed. I agree, this person is too young to stand trial as an adult alone; their parents should be on the defendant stand and tried along with him.

I can only hope the culprit finds something to turn their life around from the parasite to society they have been up until this point.

So sad… for both teens.

By: jlevaux

jlevaux — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 05:48:48 +0000

I think it would be a contradiction if the headline said teen killer.
But I was using the possessive, teen’s killer.
Plus, Tran was a teen at the time of the murder, 16, and is still a teen now, at 19.

By: souldogdave

souldogdave — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:43:48 +0000

He shot a girl in the back. He never should have been prosecuted in the first place? He should never see the light of day again. If it was my daughter, I would shoot him like the dog that he is. Tell me,Anne Beles, will you defend me?

By: reader

reader — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 06:15:44 +0000

Do you see any contradiction between your headline and the second paragraph?