Inmate Murdered After Put in Cell With Killer He Testified Against

[-Cp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,509231,00.html


ONCE AGAIN: WTF?????

McALESTER, Okla. — A 23-year-old inmate beaten to death at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary had been put in a cell with convicted killer he had testified against.

Prison spokesman Jerry Massie says Paul Duran Jr. fought with one cellmate and then was put in a cell with Jessie James Dalton.

Duran was found beaten to death about 15 minutes later.

Massie says the two were not supposed to be put in the same cell and prison officials are trying to determine how it happened.

[avatar4321]

Um what do they mean "decide if criminal charges will be filed"? What kind of moron wouldnt file charges in this case? We already know there is already one person who should be charged with murder, the inmate who freakin killed the guy!

The question remaining is are any other people involved in setting this up?

[sgtdmski]

I think the reference to decide if criminal charges will be filed is directed at the prison guards who put this man in the cell. If they were unaware of the history between the two while what happened is tragic, it was also a honest mistake. However, if any guard involved had knowledge of the prior history, then charges could and should be filed against them.

dmk

[DannyR]

Duran and Dalton were co-defendants in the January 2002 shooting death of Billy Wayne Ray in Oklahoma City.Sounds like a win-win to me.

[emmett]

Seems to me that while he was being placed in the cell he would have been protesting .... loudly if he was in fear. Others probably heard this exchange. Makes me wonder how these two were even anywhere near each other regardless of samn cell. Looks like a serious breakdown in Administration.

[DannyR]

Looks like a serious breakdown in Administration.Or an intentional one. Wouldn't surprise me if its discovered someone thought the plea-bargain the one suspect got for ratting out the other wasn't fair.

I know a number of people who think Jeffrey Dahmer was purposely put into a position where he'd likely be killed for instance.

[Yurt]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

so anyone who is a defendant is guilty :poke:

[emmett]

Or an intentional one. Wouldn't surprise me if its discovered someone thought the plea-bargain the one suspect got for ratting out the other wasn't fair.

I know a number of people who think Jeffrey Dahmer was purposely put into a position where he'd likely be killed for instance.



Yeah..so! What is your point? Was there a place where anyone would have been able to guarentee the safety of that sick bastard. Even if there was, who cares?

I got to tell you. I'm not going to lose any sleep over either of these people tonight.

I believe people should take all these things into account before they decide to do sick dimented things to other human beings.

[DannyR]

Yeah..so! What is your point? Was there a place where anyone would have been able to guarentee the safety of that sick bastard. Even if there was, who cares?

I got to tell you. I'm not going to lose any sleep over either of these people tonight.

I believe people should take all these things into account before they decide to do sick dimented things to other human beings.

You and I are in pretty close agreement here.


so anyone who is a defendant is guiltyUm, he was guilty! Those that are convicted usually are. He was at the scene and helped with the murder. Appears he just didn't pull the trigger himself, but ratted on the guy who did and thus got a lighter sentence (Robbery with a Firearm - a 28 year term vs life sentence).

http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=439325&offender_book_id=251841


Background In 2003, Jessie Dalton, along with Paul Duran, Jr., and Warren Plank, invaded the Ray family home, intending to rob it. They entered the home through the bedroom, where they encountered Darnell Ray and his wife, Stella Ray. After forcing the couple onto the bed, the three realized that the Ray's nineteen-yearold son, Billy Wayne Ray, was also home; one of the men went into the next room to find him while the other two remained in the bedroom. Upon hearing a shot, Mrs. Ray ran out of the bedroom, where she saw Billy Wayne struggling with another male over possession of a rifle. Billy Wayne told his mother that the men were "shooting blanks." Aplt.'s Br., App. 1, at 3. Another one of the robbers then came up behind Mrs. Ray and shot Billy Wayne in the head, killing him.

The three robbers fled. At issue throughout the trial was who actually fired the lethal shot; both Plank and Duran, who pleaded guilty to robbery with firearms, testified at trial that Mr. Dalton was the shooter.

Mr. Dalton was charged with one count of first degree murder in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 701.7(b). He was tried and convicted by an Oklahoma jury; the jury recommended that he be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. The sentencing court accepted this recommendation.

http://vlex.com/vid/dalton-v-dinwiddie-38304038Yup, a real standup guy.

[Yurt]

You and I are in pretty close agreement here.

Um, he was guilty! Those that are convicted usually are. He was at the scene and helped with the murder. Appears he just didn't pull the trigger himself, but ratted on the guy who did and thus got a lighter sentence (Robbery with a Firearm - a 28 year term vs life sentence).

http://docapp065p.doc.state.ok.us/servlet/page?_pageid=394&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&doc_num=439325&offender_book_id=251841

Yup, a real standup guy.

you quoted the below, and without more, what i asked is right, you in fact used another source after the fact....



Duran and Dalton were co-defendants in the January 2002 shooting death of Billy Wayne Ray in Oklahoma City.

Sounds like a win-win to me.

based upon that alone, you indicate exactly what i questioned you on your belief. so chill out and think about what you say/quote ahead of time. :poke:

[sgtdmski]

Seems to me that while he was being placed in the cell he would have been protesting .... loudly if he was in fear. Others probably heard this exchange. Makes me wonder how these two were even anywhere near each other regardless of samn cell. Looks like a serious breakdown in Administration.

From the story all we know is that he was put into the cell. Until more information is released, we do not know what his actions were when he was placed into the cell. Also we must remember that the whole reason he was placed into another cell is because he started a fight in his other cell.

What if he did not make any reaction to being placed in the cell?

Again, I stand by what I originally claimed, if the guards did not know, and he made no indications prior to them leaving, it will be hard to charge them with any crime.

dmk

[DannyR]

you quoted the below, and without more, what i asked is right, you in fact used another source after the factNot my fault you didn't know the facts. I was well aware of them. The original linked story even said he plead guilty to the lesser charge as well, so he still wasn't just a "defendant."

[Yurt]

Not my fault you didn't know the facts. I was well aware of them. The original linked story even said he plead guilty to the lesser charge as well, so he still wasn't just a "defendant."

so then you believe in vigilante justice...if a defendant is convicted there is nothing wrong with the person being killed by another inmate.....for robbery...

interesting pov

[DannyR]

so then you believe in vigilante justice...if a defendant is convicted there is nothing wrong with the person being killed by another inmate.....for robbery...Somehow I don't think the other cellmate was thinking he was avenging the murdered boy. He was seeking his own revenge. Thats not vigilante justice.

And me not being heartbroken that a killer was in fact killed isn't exactly an endorsement of that either.

[Yurt]

Somehow I don't think the other cellmate was thinking he was avenging the murdered boy. He was seeking his own revenge. Thats not vigilante justice.

And me not being heartbroken that a killer was in fact killed isn't exactly an endorsement of that either.

i don't care what the motives of the other cellmate was, i only pointed out your beliefs. it is irrelevent the other cell mate's motive. you said it was a win win, thus, you support the murder of someone convicted of robbery <--, not a killing as you claim and your belief is vigilante justice. you flat out support the murder of someone convicted of robbery...

[DannyR]

i don't care what the motives of the other cellmate was, i only pointed out your beliefs.:lol: You're really going to presume to tell me what I believe?

Just another example of you playing word games and reading more into people's posts than they implied.

Am I heartbroken that the murderer is dead? Nope, not at all. That doesn't mean I think we should have a killing spree in prisons. :poke:

And yes, I think he was a murderer. He might not have pulled the trigger, but he participated in a crime that resulted in a boy dying.

[Yurt]

you called it a win-win

apparently you're so stupid you don't even know what it is you say :poke:

and stop being a cry baby over word games...and again, you're dead wrong, i did not change the meaning of anything you said, you are just a moron who thinks he is too smart and uses words he doesn't understand.

:lame2:

[DannyR]

you called it a win-winoooh, wow. And what do you know, I have a few other posts as well after that. :poke:

Just curious, but do you even know how to have a discussion without focusing on trivialities, ignoring the broader context, and resorting to insults?

[Yurt]

oooh, wow. And what do you know, I have a few other posts as well after that. :poke:

Just curious, but do you even know how to have a discussion without focusing on trivialities, ignoring the broader context, and resorting to insults?

you have the annoying habit of saying something and then when called on it or questioned about it you accuse the other person of playing word games. if you don't like people asking you about you say, then you can kindly keep quiet.

you called it a win win and then go off on me making shit up about you said...you are a moron for that. i did not change a single word or meaning from what you said, yet you bitch and moan that i did. take the above advice danny, especially on a debate board.

and while you absorb my sage advice, why don't you do us all a favor and explain exactly what you meant by saying the murder of another inmate is a win-win situation. i shouldn't even have to ask you to explain it, you however would rather whine about people playing word games than actually explain what you meant. :poke:

[emmett]

Come on Yurt, make your points without all the namecalling man! If you're right, the truth will say everything. It's getting tacky brother!

[avatar4321]

Somehow I don't think the other cellmate was thinking he was avenging the murdered boy. He was seeking his own revenge. Thats not vigilante justice.

What on earth are you talking about? That's the essense of vigilante justice. You think someone has wronged you and you take the law in your own hands. Revenge is one of the largest motives for Vigilanted Justice.


And me not being heartbroken that a killer was in fact killed isn't exactly an endorsement of that either.

Maybe its not an endorsement, though obviously it seems otherwise, however, what exactly makes you better than the killer? You may not have committed the act, but you desired the same result. You have shown the same callous disregard to life.

[DannyR]

What on earth are you talking about? That's the essense of vigilante justice. You think someone has wronged you and you take the law in your own hands. Revenge is one of the largest motives for Vigilanted Justice.No. By that definition, anyone who commits a crime against someone they feel has wronged them is a vigilante. But thats not the generally accepted definition of the word.

Rather a vigilante punishes someone who gets away with a crime by acting where the law can't. The criminal in this circumstance was punishing someone who helped put him away and helping the law. Ratting him out wasn't a crime, but actually was what the law required.

Now if the guards in question put the guy into the cell knowingly, they would be the vigilante's. Knowing he would be beaten or killed and probably believing it was right and proper since he got away with a lighter sentence.


what exactly makes you better than the killer?:lame2: Seriously? Because I didn't break into someone's home to score a buck and kill anyone!


You may not have committed the act, but you desired the same result. You have shown the same callous disregard to life.I'd have to disagree. Your definition of "life" and mine are different. Killers aren't human in my opinion. I support the death penalty, perhaps you do not. Those who would kill other humans for their own gain have sold their humanity.



you have the annoying habit of saying something and then when called on it or questioned about it you accuse the other person of playing word games.Not a habit, as it has only happened with two posters on the board... both of whom got caught up arguing minutiae in an effort to salvage their faltering arguments rather than conceding the larger point.
explain exactly what you meant by saying the murder of another inmate is a win-win situation. A half-sarcastic remark that shouldn't need explaining: Win #1: one killer is dead. Win #2: second killer probably will get death penalty or be even less likely to be paroled. It says nothing about my belief in vigilante justice. Just because I don't feel sorry for the fellow doesn't mean I think it was the right thing to happen. Two drug cartels have a shootout and kill each other, I think its a win-win situation as well. Doesn't mean I think drugs are fine and dandy or murder is good. The right thing to have happened would be for the crime to have never been committed, so we wouldn't have to toss trash like this in prison in the first place.

[DragonStryk72]

Win #1: one killer is dead. Win #2: second killer probably will get death penalty or be even less likely to be paroled. It says nothing about my belief in vigilante justice.

However, it does show as being pro-death for the non-killer, without any knowledge of why he dropped the dime. Yes, certainly there was the plea to think of, but what if the guy had honestly had a problem with killing? Just because he took a deal, doesn't mean that's why he tesitfied necessarily, but you already made that decision.

[DannyR]

but you already made that decision.What decision? Feeling nothing for the guy? Yeah, perhaps he was remorseful about the killing. Doesn't change the fact him and two of his buddies stormed a house and a boy was killed. You carry a gun, you likely mean to use it. If he'd tried the same stunt in my own house, he wouldn't be alive to plea-bargain to anybody. Then we'd really have a win-win situation for all three of them! *yawn* Not way up their on my charity meter, and I'm hardly alone in thinking so. The recent poll showed 12 out of 14 voters on this site would shoot to kill if someone entered their home.

It is then really so heartless to not care the guy is dead after the fact? He pled guilty to the crime. Its only lucky he didn't break into one of these 12 homes here or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

[Yurt]

No. By that definition, anyone who commits a crime against someone they feel has wronged them is a vigilante. But thats not the generally accepted definition of the word.

Rather a vigilante punishes someone who gets away with a crime by acting where the law can't. The criminal in this circumstance was punishing someone who helped put him away and helping the law. Ratting him out wasn't a crime, but actually was what the law required.

Now if the guards in question put the guy into the cell knowingly, they would be the vigilante's. Knowing he would be beaten or killed and probably believing it was right and proper since he got away with a lighter sentence.

:lame2: Seriously? Because I didn't break into someone's home to score a buck and kill anyone!

I'd have to disagree. Your definition of "life" and mine are different. Killers aren't human in my opinion. I support the death penalty, perhaps you do not. Those who would kill other humans for their own gain have sold their humanity.


Not a habit, as it has only happened with two posters on the board... both of whom got caught up arguing minutiae in an effort to salvage their faltering arguments rather than conceding the larger point. A half-sarcastic remark that shouldn't need explaining: Win #1: one killer is dead. Win #2: second killer probably will get death penalty or be even less likely to be paroled. It says nothing about my belief in vigilante justice. Just because I don't feel sorry for the fellow doesn't mean I think it was the right thing to happen. Two drug cartels have a shootout and kill each other, I think its a win-win situation as well. Doesn't mean I think drugs are fine and dandy or murder is good. The right thing to have happened would be for the crime to have never been committed, so we wouldn't have to toss trash like this in prison in the first place.

it is a habit...you go around crying about word games when you get caught on a point and you can't explain your way out of it. why don't you show how i got caught up arguing minutia in an effort to salvage a faltering argument here or recant your lie as you claim that i played word games with what you said.

you are such an arrogant ass. there was no faltering argument here, and as can be seen, many others besides myself see your comments exactly how i did, yet you don't accuse them of word games. it only shows how full of meadowmuffins your word games accusations are. and your words obviously requiring an explanation as others also see your words as i do. :poke:

[Yurt]

Come on Yurt, make your points without all the namecalling man! If you're right, the truth will say everything. It's getting tacky brother!

ok pc police! :poke:

[DannyR]

why don't you show how i got caught up arguing minutia in an effort to salvage a faltering argument hereEasy enough. You claim to KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE based on a simple one line answer, and when slammed on that obvious falsehood, you keep clinging to your liferaft. :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Easy enough. You claim to KNOW WHAT I BELIEVE based on a simple one line answer, and when slammed on that obvious falsehood, you keep clinging to your liferaft. :laugh2:

you made a statement as to your beliefs. your statement was clear. and you never slammed me on that falsehood, in fact, you bolstered my statement about your beliefs even further....this is evidenced by the fact that two other posters also saw your statement(s) in as similar or same way i did.

but go ahead and continue your foolish arrogance that you "slammed" my obvious falsehood. i gave you an opportunity to explain yourself, you never did. you really need to calm down, count to 10....and ask yourself why other posters also see your words as i do. obviously you are in the wrong about my lying about your words, however, knowing your pitiful arrogance, i won't expect an apology for your pathetic allegation.

[glockmail]

Sounds like a win-win to me.

:lol: I agree.