William Spengler wanted to kill as many people as possible, as indicated by a typewritten note left behind. Spengler's killing did not start with the ambush killing of two firefighters, Lt. Michael Chiapperini, 43, and Tomasz Kaczowka, 19, on Christmas Eve. Two others were wounded, Joseph Hofstetter and Theodore Scardino, and are expected to recover.
In 1980, the twisted murderer killed his own paternal grandmother with a hammer. He served 17 years in prison on the reduced manslaughter charge, but clearly was not rehabilitated during his time behind bars. Why was he ever let out of prison after committing such a brutal murder? Why was the original murder charge reduced to manslaughter?
He also was not legally allowed to possess firearms. But Spengler did not seem too concerned about the law.
On Christmas Eve, Spengler most likely murdered his sister Cheryl, age 67, before he set his own house on fire. A neighbor stated that Spengler "hated" his sister, which makes one wonder how she could not have known that she was in grave danger? The ex-convict was already in prison for killing one family member; the tension between the siblings surely should have set off red flags.
Seven houses also went up in flames. Spengler's murderous spree was intended, according to his note, to burn down the neighborhood and kill people. While police chief Gerald Pickering did not divulge the full contents of the note, as reported by the Guardian, one line from Spengler read, "I still have to get ready to see how much of the neighborhood I can burn down and do what I like doing best, killing people." Spengler, clearly unstable, most likely would have killed even more people if he had not been chased by the first responding officer, with whom he exchanged shots, as reported by the Washington Post. Chief Pickering noted that his quick action "in all likelihood saved many lives." As the investigation unfolds, perhaps more insight will be given into the deranged mind of William Spengler. Hopefully the families and loved ones of the victims will eventually find peace. What a pointless and sickening waste of life.
Another grisly murder took place in the same neighborhood around the same time last year. This time, the murder weapon of choice was fire yet again, as a 15-year-old killed his father and two brothers after setting the family home ablaze.
Photo Source: Reuters via The Telegraph
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 48
Given some of the statements you've made in other articles and comments, I'm also surprised you're not calling for laws against arson, murder, manslaughter, etc. to be repealed, since clearly they're ineffective since criminals, by definition, break those laws anyway.
It's strange that you seem unhappy with Spengler's 17-year sentence for manslaughter, but last year a "hunter" in New Zealand plead guilty to manslaughter after shooting a woman in the head, and his sentence was only two and a half years. Have you written any articles, or are you involved in any other efforts calling for him to be kept in prison indefinitely, for the rest of his life, or whatever else it is that you consider an appropriate sentence for those found guilty of manslaughter?
Not sure which crine you're referring to. For Spengler, it's not that surprising, given that 95% of felony cases in the U.S. result in plea bargains. I don't know the particulars of the case, but it may be that the prosecutor wasn't confident about getting him on murder. And 17 years isn't that far off the max of 25 years for a class B felony, so it's not like he got off easy.
For the case in New Zealand, I suspect they charged him with manslaughter rather than murder on the contention that the killing wasn't premeditated, and that he thought he was shooting a deer when he was actually shooting a camper. Do you think two and a half years was too lenient, and that he should spend the rest of his life in prison for the heinous crime of killing that woman?
Oh...THAT certainly puts things right as rain...
"I don't know the particulars of the case, but it may be that the prosecutor wasn't confident about getting him on murder. And 17 years isn't that far off the max of 25 years for a class B felony, so it's not like he got off easy." - Leftist
Now I think I'll be sick...
According to Assistant DA Pilato, Spengler was charged with 2nd degree murder, and offered the opportunity to plead guilty to manslaughter at least in part because he "had no prior criminal record, and although it was a serious matter, the manslaughter charge doesn't mean he's getting away with the candy store."
Never been to prison myself, but I imagine that 17 years is a long time to spend there. Much longer than the two and a half years the New Zealand hunter, Andrew Mears was sentenced to serve after fatally shooting Rosemary Ives. And Mears was released after 11 months.
I recently read about another "hunter" in New Zealand, Reuben Burke, who shot and killed his best friend, and plead guilty to "careless use of a firearm causing death" and was sentenced to seven months' home detention, 300 hours of community service, and order to pay $10,000 to the family of the victim.
I find it strange that you seem so concerned about Mr. Spengler's 17 year sentence in the US, but apparently have no comment about the much lighter sentences of killers in New Zealand.
Not according to the law, and not according to the views of the authorities involved. Bummer for you, I guess. But probably best for the American justice system that the personal views of bloggers in New Zealand don't seem to get much consideration in these matters.
One strike you are out should be the policy when it comes to murder.
He wasn't convicted of murder. But if he had, it wouldn't make much sense to "bring back the death penalty" when it's already been found to be in violation of the New York state constitution.
Strange that self-identified conservatives would admit, in public, that they want a government to illegal kill its citizens.
Renee, is it true that New Zealand hasn't executed anybody in over 55 years? And that the death penalty was abolished for murder in 1961 and (with bipartisan support) for all crimes in 1989? How very civilized. Yet apparently you don't want the people of New York to enjoy the same level of civilization that you enjoy. How sad.
It's amazing what activist judges are able to "find" in a constitution that no one else could find for over a 100 years.
If the the story is true that he did murder his grandmother should he have been convicted of murder?
What's not amazing is how often people throw around terms like "activist judges" without providing anything from the relevant decision to show evidence of judicial activism.
In this particular case, the law the court found in violation of the state constitution was Section 400.27(10) of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. Was it over 100 years before it was found to be unconstitutional in 2004? My understanding, after reading Diana Huffman's To Act or Not to Act: Will New York's Defeated Death Penalty Be Resurrected, was that it was passed in 1995. You got a source to back up that 100+ years claim?
"If the the story is true that he did murder his grandmother should he have been convicted of murder?"
I guess we'll never know, since it didn't go to trial. He accepted a plea deal, so a jury never got to consider whether he was guilty of murder or not. Without knowing the details of the case, I don't see much point in trying to second-guess the DA. Generally speaking, I recognize that there are all kinds of problems with the prevalence of plea-bargaining, but also that without it the entire criminal justice system would be pretty much paralyzed.
The guy killed a woman and spent 17 years in prison for doing so. Did the sentence fit the crime? I have no idea, and I don't know how that could possibly be objectively determined. I know it's a lot longer than Andrew Mears spent in prison for shooting a woman in the head, but I guess it's hard to compare different sentences, different cases, different circumstances, different countries, etc.
It had nothing to do with any amendments to the New York constitution, or with interpretations of the New York constitution. It had to do with laws from 2005, not from 100+ years ago.
Since you haven't produced any evidence of judicial activism, I'm guessing you just like to throw that term around whenever some court makes a decision you don't agree with.
I believe it is simply because they personally didn't like the laws.
Perhaps what needs to be clarified is that your personal views on appropriate sentencing in New York (or any other US state) don't trump the relevant laws and decisions of the authorities involved in the case. Simple.
He was sentenced to 17 years in prison after pleading guilty to manslaughter. The maximum sentence was 25 years, not life, whether you like it or not. What's the average sentence for manslaughter in New Zealand, Renee? Does bludgeoning one's own grandmother carry some sort of additional sentence?
Andrew Mears shot a woman in the head and served 11 months in prison. How many articles did you write insisting that he should spend the rest of his life in prison? How many times did you petition your government to keep him locked up for the rest of his life, or to execute him for his heinous crime?
You still seem to be confusing a case before the Supreme Court that dealt with the federal constitution with another case that involved the New York constitution. Your statement was "It's amazing what activist judges are able to "find" in a constitution that no one else could find for over a 100 years." I've pointed out that the law that was found to be unconstitutional had been enacted in 1995, which was only nine years before the ruling, not over 100 years.
You're the one who seems to be missing the point.
"I believe it is simply because they personally didn't like the laws."
Really? Have you read the Justices' opinions in the case? Because while a couple of them (Brennan and Marshall) said that they were opposed to the death penalty itself (because they felt that it violated the 8th Amendment), most made it clear that they weren't. And while another (Burger) admitted that, if he could, he'd either do away with the death penalty altogether, or restrict it to "a small category of only the most heinous crimes", he was actually in the minority in this case, arguing that inconsistent and arbitrary state laws related to the death penalty wasn't unconstitutional.
You asked some good questions. Why was the charge reduced; why was he released. Let me add and answer one.
WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS? Answer: because it does not fall in line with their guns are the problem paradigm. As soon as they found out that he was not legally entitled to possess a firearm; they realized that people might get the right idea; that making it illegal to possess a firearm will not work. So they would rather that this story just fade away. Which it will. Soon.
I didn't make them...I just know them ;]
Unlike you and me, he lived in a country that has a very large number of firearms (over 270 million civilian-owned firearms) and much more limited gun control legislation. Pretty much everybody has access (relatively easy access) to firearms in the United States. And based on your comments in various discussions here, you seem to be in favor of making access to firearms (in the US, at least) even easier.
I believe in the death penality... as long as abortion is allowed, so should the death penality...
I don't know what gun control legislation has been enacted in Russia, but I suspect that its high homicide rates can be explained in large part by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent rise of organized crime groups.
How do you explain countries like New Zealand, Australia, and most other developed countries in the world, where guns are more tightly controlled and there are much lower murder rates than in the US?
I think it is time to amputate everyone's hands, feet, and heads to limit the personal objects that are available to killers. Then ban all sharp objects like knives, swords, sticks, needles, and so on. Once they no longer exist, the destroy all blunt objects like HAMMERS, shoes, cars, sticks, balls, and so on. When all of that is done, I strongly suspect that the murder rate using rifles will be miniscule as it would be very hard for a rifle to shoot by itself. With no fingers left to pull the trigger, we will have finally solved the murder rate with rifles WITHOUT EVER BANNING A RIFLE.
Yes, the handgun rate is higher, but a handgun, like a rifle, cannot pick itself up and kill someone. Someone or something must pull the trigger. As with rifles, amputating the extremities would also solve the handgun murder problem.