Grafton Man Charged with Murder
Thirty-seven-year-old Charles A. Avey of Grafton was charged Tuesday with first-degree intentional homicide and felony bail jumping. He is scheduled to appear in court Tuesday afternoon.
The criminal complaint says Avey killed 14-year-old Cody A. Reetz on Sunday.
Avey’s ex-wife told investigators Avey was trying to get back at his ex-wife and her former husband, who is Cody’s birth father. She says he admitted killing Cody and asked her to drive him to the sheriff’s department so he could turn himself in.
Maybe I’ll get that case on jury duty.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 1810 hrs
This guy related to the junk yard dude who killed the photographer chick? Name seems similar…and I agree: kill a boy, hang ‘em high.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 17, 2009 at 1935 hrs
This guy related to the junk yard dude who killed the photographer chick?
No, that was Steven Avery. Close, but not quite.
He should go to jail for the rest of his pathetic life.
Posted by Amy P. on November 17, 2009 at 2201 hrs
The lefties don’t think we need the death penalty. At least we should give this guy the option to kill himself or I think someone will do it for him in prison.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0728 hrs
Guys like this tend to have a short life span in prison.
I was just shocked when I read this story. I suppose I shouldn’t be these days - but this was really sad.
And way to go mom for picking such a winner to be the stepfather of your kid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0811 hrs
He asked her to drive him to the police to turn himself in?!?! If that was my child he just murdered, I would have appointed my self Judge, Jury and Executioner. He would not have made it to the police.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0812 hrs
I think it was his ex-wife who drove him, not his current wife.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0838 hrs
Wow, ofr, thanks for turning this discussion into a partisan political issue in such short order - only four posts!
Even as a so-called “lefty”, I have little problem with the death penalty, particularly in a case like this. This case and the case out of North Carolina are just mind boggling. Children should never have to be the victims of these sort of crimes, but sadly, it’s happening more often these days…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 0838 hrs
We need the death penalty in Wisconsin.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1014 hrs
It’s sad the way our society has devalued human life, but since we’ve accepted abortion as a means of population control is it any wonder we’re hearing about more and more of these cases? I hope every day this guy spends in prison is filled with the same terror he inflicted on his step son.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1109 hrs
#10
“but since we’ve accepted abortion as a means of population control is it any wonder we’re hearing about more and more of these cases?”Huh??????
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1319 hrs
Scott
Care to elaborate a bit on your comment? You lost me.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1351 hrs
I was seriously disturbed after reading this. What could have been going through that child’s mind? Guys like that should definitely get the death penalty. But, even if he doesn’t, God will deal with him far better than we ever could. And it probably won’t be pretty.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 18, 2009 at 1435 hrs
Let’s see? Human life destroyed as a means of birth control. Human life no longer considered to be a gift from (dare I say it?) God, and treated as disposable at the whim of the deranged. Human life taken as a means of “getting back” at his wife for her audacity of reporting his abusive behavior toward her. Easily stated NO regard for human life will subsequently lead to more and more cases of morons like this doing these types of monstrous acts. Seems simple enough to me. Why do you Liberals have such a hard time understanding the obvious?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1705 hrs
I think what Scott is alluding to is that our society has been engaged in a long walk away from a universal acceptance of the intrinsic value of human life. Abortion is one expression, euthanasia is another, past attempts a sterilization of the mentally challenged is an expression. It is an idea or concept that once the intrinsic value of life is taken away it is not hard to fathom that some would go to the logical extreme – another’s life is only worth what it may be worth to me. Thus, the stepson’s entire worth (in the eyes of the step-dad) became his usefulness in causing pain in the mother.
Abortion is a good example. The baby’s life becomes worth only what it will add to the mother’s life on a net basis. No intrinsic value, thus mom gets to chose. Same with euthanasia – a person’s worth get measured against the money and effort it takes to keep them alive (or in drastic cases comfortable). It has no intrinsic value.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1706 hrs
Then, I think, Scott would deplore the 100,000 innocent lives murdered, including over 4,000 of our young men and women in the service, who’s lives were lost because of the lies George Bush spoke to justify starting a war with a country that posed no threat to us. Murder is murder and no one should be above the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1727 hrs
Then it is it not also murder to keep those same service men and women over there? Obama has made little effort to bring our troops home either.
Of course, we could always go further back and discuss how Lincoln started the war to keep the southern states from seceding, and really didn’t want slavery to end as much as he wanted to keep the southern states in line.
Wanna go there?
Murder is murder, and there are a lot more people that are guilty of it than just a few liberals or conservatives. There is plenty of blame on both sides so instead of making a senseless murder into a big pity party for the partisans, deal with the issue. The guy murdered his stepson. He should be severely punished. End. Of. Story.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 18, 2009 at 1731 hrs
#17
“Then it is it not also murder to keep those same service men and women over there?”No, because the lives that have been lost are directy due to the actions Bush took to take us into an illegal war. But I would agree that Obama should remove all troops from overseas.
It’s a non-partisan issue with me. I don’t care if it was a Republican or Democrat, murder is murder who ever causes it, and no one should be above the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1741 hrs
So in World War I and II we should have just stayed home?
Come on - war is a necessary evil, because of the people who aren’t all smiles and sunshine.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 1952 hrs
The Iraq war was not necessary. Bush deceived the public to take us to war. A war that caused the needless deaths of over 4000 of our children. It is not right that a person can directly cause these deaths and get away with murder. Where is the public outrage over being lied to? There have been politicians who have lied, who amoung other things, have lied about have concentual sex, which have brought down the wrath of a good many people over it. Yet lying and causing the deaths of over 4000 of our citizens is acceptable?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2020 hrs
I forgot to mention, invading Iraq was not necessary.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2026 hrs
Good grief. Stay on topic, Pat.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2033 hrs
Sorry Wendy, but based on what Scott wrote about the value of life I believe I am.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2042 hrs
F&B Pat you would be incorrect to make the assumption you state in your #16 comment. Sadam asked for Iraq to be invaded by constantly defying the terms of peace agreed to after Desert Storm. Whether you can accept the actions taken make little difference at this point, and your supposition that all people can get along if they just talk out their differences is pure fantasy. Try taking off the rose colored glasses, “nothing” is as it seems
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2047 hrs
Sorry Scott, but you’re wrong. All intelligence that we had said that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to the United States. The white paper that was released to the congress, senate, and American public was altered by the white house from what the CIA reported based on declassified documents. I’m not wearing rose colored glasses. War might well be justified, but Iraq was not one of those wars. I value the lives of our children too much to accept being taken to a war based on lies. I refuse to wear blinders when it comes to murder.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2103 hrs
Be that as it may, we’ve gotten off topic of the heinous act committed by Mr. Avey. Perhaps it’s a leap for me to tie his actions to society’s acceptance of murdering unborn children, but I do believe the connection can be made. It’s getting to the point where these acts no longer trigger the outrage they once did, and only draw a shrug of the shoulders and a “so what else is new”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2156 hrs
Scott, yes, we’ve gotten off topic. But I would with what you said, “It’s getting to the point where these acts no longer trigger the outrage they once did, and only draw a shrug of the shoulders and a “so what else is new”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2201 hrs
Sorry——clarification
Scott, yes, we’ve gotten off topic. But I would agree with what you said, “It’s getting to the point where these acts no longer trigger the outrage they once did, and only draw a shrug of the shoulders and a “so what else is new”
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2203 hrs
Well Pat, I guess all is not lost if you and I can find a common ground on at least this subject.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2257 hrs
Holey crap! Bush is still to blame. Even for scumbags who murder children in Grafton. But if your a scumbag who murders in your own country, that’s OK with F&B Pat because [some] lives are not worth living.
p.s. Any proof that the Iraq war was ‘Illegal”? The lack of, might explain why GWB, and his inner circle are free people. Even under the Czar’s in chief.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 18, 2009 at 2323 hrs
Whoever doesn’t support the death penalty in this case is a freaking moron and has less brain cells than a slug and my aplogies to the slug.
The killer has no shame and killed an innocent child because he was angry.
Again, whoever doen’t think this thug deserves the death penalty has no brain cells and is a complete idiot.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0314 hrs
TerryN, I never once said, or inferred, that Bush was to blame for scumbags who murder children in Grafton. I was discussing the value of life in the context as presented by Scott.
And yes, there is more than enough evidence to bring Bush to trial, and convict, for the murder of over 4,000 U.S. citizens in war in Iraq. A sitting president can’t be convicted of a crime until he’s out of office.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0712 hrs
Um—-
It is the parents job to take care of their children. This mother
let this scumbag into her life and did not protect her child.
Happens all the time. The selfish parent puts his/her needs
ahead of the childs. Makes me sick. Hang em both.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0836 hrs
Love it when you get away from Folkbum Dan. You really let it al hang out. Guess another example of the influence of environment.
So this begs the question. Why in fact is the death penalty that many here are demanding needed? No one could argue that Avey would have not killed the kid if we had it. God forbid I ask this, so I will. Does it make us a better society?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0852 hrs
Wow Keith has no kids!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0913 hrs
So in World War I and II we should have just stayed home?
Come on - war is a necessary evil, because of the people who aren’t all smiles and sunshine.
So in World War I and II we should have just stayed home?
Come on - war is a necessary evil, because of the people who aren’t all smiles and sunshine.
WWII was half our fault for pissing off Japan. Had we not put sanctions on them, they likely wouldn’t have attacked us at Pearl Harbor. We were sitting ducks there, with all our ships in one spot.
WWI I’m not as familiar with so I’m not going to say whether we should have been involved or not.
The purpose of the military here should be to protect our own borders and nothing else. It’s not our job to go into other countries and fight fights that don’t belong to us. We should be keeping to ourselves and leave the military to the borders. It’s fairly simple, but our presidents, Republican AND democrat alike, seem to think that it’s just fine to start wars wherever they want because war is money. Whatever facade they choose to put on it doesn’t really matter as much as the amount of money or support it generates.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 19, 2009 at 0914 hrs
Yes I do. Two beautiful Democratic/Progressive Obama activist daughters. What else don’t you know Maynard?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0939 hrs
Yes MommaBlogger, “war is a necessary evil”, but not all war is necessary. Iraq was an unnecessary war based on all intelligence.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0949 hrs
I think you meant “no” intelligence, from our espionage organizations and the leader at the time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 0956 hrs
If you actually read the post, I am not the person saying that war is a necessary evil. That was my point. We shouldn’t be going to war in countries where we have no business. We should protect our own borders and leave it at that. Like I said.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 19, 2009 at 0959 hrs
I know that all you libs will be the first in line for the gas chambers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1005 hrs
Maynard,
Sorry to dissappoint you but I voted conservative in the last election.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1044 hrs
Thanks for outing yourself Maynard.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1046 hrs
WWII was half our fault for pissing off Japan. Had we not put sanctions on them, they likely wouldn’t have attacked us at Pearl Harbor.
Whoa, Momma! Please stay away from historical topics. Especially for humanitarian reasons. Japan’s operations put Hitler’s holocaust to shame. They killed many more people simply because they were ‘not Japanese’ than Germany killed for being Jewish. No sanctions? Yikes.
Why in fact is the death penalty that many here are demanding needed? No one could argue that Avey would have not killed the kid if we had it. God forbid I ask this, so I will. Does it make us a better society?
Perhaps not. At least not from a commonly held liberal belief that all life has value. Unfortunately, that is often taken to extremes and those same believers have significant(one might say incredible) blind spots. When all life becomes so precious that people refuse to eat anything that once breathed or wear clothes made of things that once lived, I do believe that does not improve society either. If murderers lives are so precious, why do so many liberals approve of unlimited, even Government funded abortion?
Now turn that question around. Is society better for keeping those unrepentant prisoners alive, paying for their crimes by doing nothing but learning how to be more violent? Personally, I would say ‘no’ based primarily on the consideration that over 50% of murders in the US are repeat offenses, but I admit to being more draconian than most.
I do not believe in capital punishment because the criminal deserves it, although that is a satisfying if barbaric side effect. I believe it is a deterrent because people who have murdered would never be able to murder again. Timely capital punishment would absolutely lower the fatal crime rate in the US, fewer repeat offenders.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1055 hrs
Whoa, Momma! Please stay away from historical topics. Especially for humanitarian reasons. Japan’s operations put Hitler’s holocaust to shame. They killed many more people simply because they were ‘not Japanese’ than Germany killed for being Jewish. No sanctions? Yikes.
So what? It’s not our business what they do over there. We protect our borders, that’s it. Then we don’t have to get involved in these nasty wars until they try to attack us. We don’t want to trade with someone, fine. We don’t trade with them. We don’t put sanctions on them.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 19, 2009 at 1106 hrs
So what? It’s not our business what they do over there. We protect our borders, that’s it. Then we don’t have to get involved in these nasty wars until they try to attack us. We don’t want to trade with someone, fine. We don’t trade with them. We don’t put sanctions on them.
I just stared open mouthed at this for about 30 seconds. Just… stared. Keith, meet your (bi-)polar opposite.
That level of isolationism is beyond my ability to comment on or even mock other than to say that I am glad we do not live in your idea of Utopia, mommablogger
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1149 hrs
Isolationism? It has nothing to do with isolationism, it has everything to do with minding our own business. It’s not our job to make anyone else in any other country behave the way we think they should. When we do that we are no better than the muslim extremists who are supposedly coming over here to attack us. We are no better than the crusaders who felt the need to destroy the muslims. We are no better than Hitler who thought his race was better than another.
Regard for human life, which I think was one of the original topics, ends when one group of people decides another group of people (or individuals) have no right to behave as they wish. If they behave improperly on our own soil, then we have every right to deal with them accordingly. On their soil, it’s their laws, their rules, and their decisions, not ours. For such a supposedly free country, we seem to have issues with allowing anyone else to be free to do as they wish.
Posted by MommaBlogger on November 19, 2009 at 1156 hrs
I’d say more like your bi-polar opposite.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1222 hrs
Regard for human life, which I think was one of the original topics, ends when one group of people decides another group of people (or individuals) have no right to behave as they wish.
Ends or starts? So if blond Germans behave as they wish by killing all swarthy skinned people in their borders, that is their right and we should not interfere because it is not in our border, correct? If they then spill over in to another country that too is okay as long as it is not our border, correct?
Ma’am, that is a working definition of isolationalism when referring to a national policy, not to mention offensively ridiculous.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1227 hrs
Keith you are still an idiot, even when I try to be civil. Momma is a draconian isolationist. I am aware that there is a global economy, but I am still pro swift death penalty for admitted murderers. On one level, we agree. You are pro-life for murderers and from what small coherency I have gleaned from past posts, I think you are not isolationist(See? Opposites). It would be hard to reconcile with current liberal opinion. I guess I was just fantasizng about you having coherent thought. Not much point apologizing, you probably wouldn’t get it and certainly not accept it from a non-liberal. What a tool.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1234 hrs
Well thanks for completely derailing what I had hoped might actually become an intelligent conversation about the effects of the decline of the intrinsic value of life in our society. The leap to the current war is just plain stupid because the point of post was to look at the effect of it on individual’s gov’t policy is normally the expression of the lack of value not the cause of it. There is a bit of chicken egg thing, sure, but the only intelligent way to bring it into the conversation would be to suggest that the lack of intrinsic value of life may have found expression via the willingness to go to war more quickly (arguably) than in the past.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1303 hrs
Doesn’t an innocent unborn child deserve the right to prove their worth than Avey deserves to continue to prove his worthLESSness?
Have we lost ALL sense of decency, and propriety?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2009 at 1325 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 103
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:52 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).