NationStates Jolt Archive

Man shoots postman to get jailed

Postman Mr Lazenby said the man took his letters before shooting him
A US man shot his postman so that he would get sent to prison for life and escape his crippling medical debts, investigators say.

William Crutchfield shot 59-year-old postman Earl Lazenby in Snellville, Georgia, two weeks ago.

He greeted the postman and collected his letters before lifting his pistol and shooting him seven times.

Mr Lazenby survived the attack but the shots punctured his colon and intestine and fractured bones in an arm.

After shooting Mr Lazenby, the 60-year-old electrical contractor drove to the police station and confessed.

'Inspired by bomber'

Mr Crutchfield told police that he shot the postman as a way of escaping medical debts of $90,000 (£75,000).

He said he feared losing his home and thought that living in prison would be better than surviving on the street.

"He was saying that he wanted to be cared for by the federal government, that he was in poor health and wanted to be taken care of," Atlanta postal inspector Tracey Jefferson said.

Mr Lazenby told the Associated Press news agency: "He took his mail and then said 'Hello'. And then just started shooting."

He said the man then "casually got into his car and drove away".

Mr Crutchfield reportedly told police that he had been inspired by following the fate of Atlanta Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph.

Under an April 2005 deal, Rudolph received four life sentences without parole.

During his first court appearance Mr Crutchfield asked if he could plead guilty twice.

"I'd like to get to where I'm going and start doing my time," he told the judge.

Mr Crutchfield remains in jail charged with attempting to kill a federal employee.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4687073.stm)


I don't know what people here think, but IMO this makes a good case for one of two options. Either institute the death penalty for murder, or how about hard labour for life.

I personally prefer the hard labour, that way at least the nation would benefit something if prisoners had to build roads or clear drainage ditches etc.

Given the various responses here I have added a poll.

Insanity. Mental institution. How sad.

does this constitute an arguement for the death penalty?

no it does not. you dont change law due to the actions of one desperate man.

No, its a good argument for free health care however.

No, its a good argument for free health care however.

...until you realize that the unemployment rate will likely at least double, since you're giving people one less reason to work.

does this constitute an arguement for the death penalty?

no it does not. you dont change law due to the actions of one desperate man.

Hate to say it i think it makes an arguement for socilaizing healthcare, I really can't fault this guys logic(the shooter), but i do think he should have thought of a better way then attempted murder. It also sounds like this guy shot him seven times in non-critical area's not that i think that changes much

...until you realize that the unemployment rate will likely at least double, since you're giving people one less reason to work.

I think that comment is a bit much. I understand that their are people that would sponge of any system that is put in place. IE the current state of welfare. But i also think that the country (which is everyone that is a US citizens) do have somewhat of a responsibly to look out for and help take care of each other.

...until you realize that the unemployment rate will likely at least double, since you're giving people one less reason to work.

Unemployment Double?
Quit work because I dont have to pay for my baby being delivered?

Which planet?

I don't know what people here think, but IMO this makes a good case for one of two options. Either institute the death penalty for murder, or how about hard labour for life.

I personally prefer the hard labour, that way at least the nation would benefit something if prisoners had to build roads or clear drainage ditches etc.
Well, okay, but not for this particular instance. No one was murdered.

I personally feel that murderers should get imprisonment, not execution.

No, its a good argument for free health care however.
I agree. Too bad we can't deport him to some dusty, drought stricken, famine ridden Afrifcan nation where he doesn't know the language. That would be a good punishment.

No, its a good argument for free health care however.
Booya!

Haha

The article said Mr Lazenby survived the attack so they can't give Crutchfield the death penalty, can they? They should put him in jail for the assault on Mr Lazenby. Crutchfield isn't really crazy since he acted in trying to escape debt, so I don't know bout the mental institution.

The article said Mr Lazenby survived the attack so they can't give Crutchfield the death penalty, can they? They should put him in jail for the assault on Mr Lazenby. Crutchfield isn't really crazy since he acted in trying to escape debt, so I don't know bout the mental institution.


The point being that if they put him in prison then everyone with unpayable debts (for whatever reason people who are twisting this to be about state health care) have an out by going and shooting someone. Is that a good message to give.

Build up the debts, live the good life and then when it is time to pay go shoot that ex school enemy in the groin a few times and live off the tax payer instead.

Hard labour still seems like a good option to me.

The point being that if they put him in prison then everyone with unpayable debts (for whatever reason people who are twisting this to be about state health care) have an out by going and shooting someone. Is that a good message to give.

Build up the debts, live the good life and then when it is time to pay go shoot that ex school enemy in the groin a few times and live off the tax payer instead.

Hard labour still seems like a good option to me.
It does not automatically become an option for everyone else, or even many. Prison was the lesser of two evils for Crutchfield, but still an evil. It in no way suggests prison is some sort of "easy life."

The point being that if they put him in prison then everyone with unpayable debts (for whatever reason people who are twisting this to be about state health care) have an out by going and shooting someone. Is that a good message to give.

Build up the debts, live the good life and then when it is time to pay go shoot that ex school enemy in the groin a few times and live off the tax payer instead.

Hard labour still seems like a good option to me.

Why, produce free health care and no innocent will be shot. No previously innocent will do the shooting. Or go to jail. Or dig holes. Or be electocuted until they are deceased. Much better resolution. :headbang:

Why, produce free health care and no innocent will be shot. No previously innocent will do the shooting. Or go to jail. Or dig holes. Or be electocuted until they are deceased. Much better resolution. :headbang:

So in your world the only way to get into debt is to have medical bills? :headbang:

How about buying to big a house, having too many holidays, driving too flashy a car. In general living beyond your means. What is worrying here is the potential precedent of allowing someone to escape debt by assaulting an innocent person.

Yes in this case, if there had been state health care it would not have happened, but I am trying to discuss the principle of using a crime to avoid debts in general.

It's quite a good argument against the ready availability of guns

So in your world the only way to get into debt is to have medical bills? :headbang:

How about buying to big a house, having too many holidays, driving too flashy a car. In general living beyond your means. What is worrying here is the potential precedent of allowing someone to escape debt by assaulting an innocent person.

Yes in this case, if there had been state health care it would not have happened, but I am trying to discuss the principle of using a crime to avoid debts in general.

What???? This man shot someone because he was dying! Show me the BBC story whereby someone killed someone so they didnt need to pay for there bloody car!?! Ever heard of bankruptcy? .... I mean :headbang:

So in your world the only way to get into debt is to have medical bills? :headbang:

How about buying to big a house, having too many holidays, driving too flashy a car. In general living beyond your means. What is worrying here is the potential precedent of allowing someone to escape debt by assaulting an innocent person.

Yes in this case, if there had been state health care it would not have happened, but I am trying to discuss the principle of using a crime to avoid debts in general.
Clearly the person who racks up debt by buying big houses and taking fancy vacations is too concerned about his quality of life to even consider living in a dirty prison without opportunities to travel, meet new people, go for a walk, go for a drive, etc.

It's quite a good argument against the ready availability of guns
Or against prohibiting everyone from carrying one. If the postman was armed I doubt he would have been attacked by this creep. Lets face it, the attacker was trying to insure his continued existance. Pulling a gun on a similarly armed man doesn't help in that regard.

Or against prohibiting everyone from carrying one. If the postman was armed I doubt he would have been attacked by this creep. Lets face it, the attacker was trying to insure his continued existance. Pulling a gun on a similarly armed man doesn't help in that regard.

No one's suggesting he's stupid. If he was going to shoot an armed man he'd obviously do it in a sneaky way when the postman wasn't looking, or he could have distracted him like this:

"Hey Pat, is that your black and white cat escaping from your van?"

"Where"

Bang

"You sneaky old man, you've shot me before I could get my gun out"

Comedy and social comment. What more could you ask for ;)

Edit

You may need to be english to understand the subtle nuances in the above

No one's suggesting he's stupid. If he was going to shoot an armed man he'd obviously do it in a sneaky way when the postman wasn't looking, or he could have distracted him like this:

"Hey Pat, is that your black and white cat escaping from your van?"

"Where"

Bang

"You sneaky old man, you've shot me before I could get my gun out"

Comedy and social comment. What more could you ask for ;)

Edit

You may need to be english to understand the subtle nuances in the aboveWell, if I was witness to such a thing I'd make sure the shooter was going to the morgue, not the hospital, but I get your point. He could have done it without witnesses and by surprise.

What???? This man shot someone because he was dying! Show me the BBC story whereby someone killed someone so they didnt need to pay for there bloody car!?! Ever heard of bankruptcy? .... I mean :headbang:

Try reading the report. He shot someone because he could not pay the bills. What the bills were for is actually irrelevant to the story. Yes I have heard of bankruptcy, but apparently it seems that life in gaol is less difficult than being bankrupt. Or at least that is the message given here.

it's not an argument for the death penalty, that would make us (society) as guilty as he is. It is an argument for free healthcare. which wouldn't double unemployment. there are other reasons to work than just to be able to stay healthy, such as a more lavish lifestyle with fancy shit like cars, more meals out at expensive places, or even neccessary stuff, like housing and bills. Its not a bad argument against having armed citizens, in Britain he'd have had to use a knife, which would be harder to do. I don't think the posty being armed would have helped him, unless he happened to be a quicker draw than the attacker, and then you'd still have death/injury to deal with.

Well, I am more for hard labor as a solution(I am not opposed to healthcare :) )
I ultimately think that the man's actions were wrong no matter what his intent was. This situation could be said as an argument against gun rights but I do not find as much offense against rifles or other guns that can not be hidden and would be ineffective for a military.

I can't believe someone actually said "gun laws." LIke there aren't other ways to kill people?

Yes I have heard of bankruptcy, but apparently it seems that life in gaol is less difficult than being bankrupt. Or at least that is the message given here.


The man is not right in the head. He acted in an extreme manner to a problem that he had blown out of proportion.


Do y'all understand this? The man attempted to murder somebody because of irrational fears. Our govt. does provide relief to elderly people as well as health care, social security etc. On top of what ever that he could get from social security if his income is that low he can also get welfare and medicaid on top of the medicare. By the way, primary place of residence is not included as an asset for the purpose of determining social security and medicare benefits.

The thinking that, if I randomly murder the next person that comes down my sidewalk they will put me in jail for the rest of my life and I will never have to worry about a thing, is irrational. He's crazy.

In America's prison system, prisoners are allowed to live out their sentences in relative ease. They have TV, an exercise yard, the ability to work for fake money and buy items, they may appeal their sentences, they can attend church, even see movies or produce and put on their own plays.

First, there is a difference between crimes. Murder is on a different level than stealing a car. If someone steals a car, they should be made to return it, pay for damages, possibly a fine also, and a few nights in a jail.

Murder, on the other hand, is a completely different situation. The murderer, whether sane or otherwise, has taken the life of another Human Being. They have prevented the deceased from seeing his/her family again, doing any of the wonderful things in this life.

Those who murder should lose this themselves. They should not be allowed to live out their days in air-conditioned rooms, with all provided at the expense of the taxpayers, of the family of the person who was killed.

This may seem callous, but, look at it this way: Murderers have killed a productive (or will be productive) member of society. By jailing these murderers, they become even more a burden upon society. You can't let them go, but eventually they will drain funds which could be used, for instance, to educate a child.

Sticking them in a mental institution will do no good. When someone has done something of that magnitude, they can never be trusted not to kill again. Besides, then we have to pay for more psychiatrists. Mental institutions should be fore those who truly are crazy, who need help, but who have not destroyed a life.

And, as for free health care, that would require a raise in taxes. I really wish the government would go back to a 10% tax rate, like we had before our wars, when the people had enough of their own money that they could buy their own insurance. Trust me, the US Gov't is a Bureaucratic Morass. Do you really want to make it worse (If you're a liberal or a foreigner, don't answer that :D)?

The government has gotten too cozy on its yearly paycheck. It's about time they learned to pick and choose what to spend it on, and let the people do the same with their wages.

he didnt want to act sneaky because he need someone to see so they could charge him. Can this man be truly to blame. Shooting a man is wrong. but he did it out of desperation of getting out of bankruptcy. Would u rather live on the streets in a bowx while it is lightning and u r starving or would u live in a place with OK meals and a warm place and sheltered from nature. The man is smart. He thought this was the only way he could get out of the scenario above. The way he got out of that is wrong though. This isnt about wat should happen to him in prison. This is about our healthcare policies. If only we could help all the homeless and bankruptees. And now Bush has made it harder to file bankruptcy. :) :sniper: :headbang:

In America's prison system, prisoners are allowed to live out their sentences in relative ease. They have TV, an exercise yard, the ability to work for fake money and buy items, they may appeal their sentences, they can attend church, even see movies or produce and put on their own plays.

. . .You might want to Google "Attica State Prison Riot" for the primary reason why they have those things. The short response is that taking a few conveniences (TV's cost what, 30 bucks? Cable costs $300 per year for the entire prison?) away from convicted murderers doesn't teach them a lesson so much as it incites them to shank the guards.


Murder, on the other hand, is a completely different situation. The murderer, whether sane or otherwise, has taken the life of another Human Being. They have prevented the deceased from seeing his/her family again, doing any of the wonderful things in this life.

Those who murder should lose this themselves. They should not be allowed to live out their days in air-conditioned rooms, with all provided at the expense of the taxpayers, of the family of the person who was killed.

This may seem callous, but, look at it this way: Murderers have killed a productive (or will be productive) member of society. By jailing these murderers, they become even more a burden upon society. You can't let them go, but eventually they will drain funds which could be used, for instance, to educate a child.


. . .So if I murder an unproductive member of society, it's okay? The value of a life, at least ideally, shouldn't be equivalent to the value of their average annual income. Unfortunately, if that's the standard, then there's a value on the killer's life too, isn't there?

thanks xeno.

gaelic, yopu say that killing a Human Being is wrong, and it prevents tehm from seeing their family again. I agree. totally. so we shouldn't kill people who kill people. everyone deserves life, and they should get life imprisonment.

thanks xeno.

gaelic, yopu say that killing a Human Being is wrong, and it prevents tehm from seeing their family again. I agree. totally. so we shouldn't kill people who kill people. everyone deserves life, and they should get life imprisonment.

Us humans have a little God-Given thing called "Self Awareness." The murderer chose to take another's life. Biblical Law 101: "Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword," and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That person doesn't deserve life. And under current law, most murderers are not allowed to have visitors. So you have your back to the wall.

Xenophobialand, I am Christian, but so many people on NS seem to automatically dismiss Biblical arguments, that I attempted to argue from a "Life has no intrinsic value" point of view, as many people here seem to subscribe to this view.