MMA fighter ripped out friend's heart, tongue

[mr friendly guy]

Because there is a bias towards shooting stories in N & P apparently

http://www.news.com.au/world/man-ripped ... 6468292250

A MARTIAL artist accused of ripping out his friend's heart and removing his tongue while the two were on hallucinogenic drugs has pleaded guilty to murder.

Jarrod Wyatt agreed to a plea deal, in which he will serve 50 years to life in prison, prosecutors said.

His official sentencing is scheduled for October 4.

Wyatt pleaded guilty to first-degree murder involving mayhem in the March 21, 2010, death of his sparring partner, 21-year-old Taylor Powell, prosecutors said.

"The earliest he'll be able to see a parole board is 2062," District Attorney Jon Alexander said.

"We saved Taylor's family the agony from reliving the incident at the trial."

Wyatt's attorney, James Fallman, said his 29-year-old client didn't want to testify at trial and he didn't want his family to testify.

"We looked for an agreement that would at least give him the opportunity to be paroled someday," Mr Fallman said.

"As bad as 50 years to life sounds, it's better than life without the possibility of parole."

The agreement was reached Thursday night, four days before Wyatt's trial was to begin in Crescent City, the Eureka Times-Standard reported Friday.

When police arrived that day at a home at the mouth of the Klamath River, they found Wyatt naked and covered in blood.

He told the officers, "I killed him," and said he had cut out Mr Powell's heart and tongue, according to court documents.

The officers found Mr Powell's body on the couch of the Requa home.

His chest was cut open, and his heart, tongue and the skin of his face were gone, court records said.

His heart was found charred in a wood-burning stove.

An autopsy determined the organs had been removed while Mr Powell was still alive, the documents said.

Witnesses say the two had ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms before the attack and believed they were involved in a struggle between God and the devil.

Wyatt had entered pleas of not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity, prompting psychiatrists to evaluate his mental competence.

In May, a judge ruled Wyatt was competent to stand trial.

Hallucinogenic substances can screw you up. Who knew.

On another note, did anyone else think Kano wins when they saw the words ripped out heart and MMA fighter?

[Dr. Trainwreck]

On another note, did anyone else think Kano wins when they saw the words ripped out heart and MMA fighter?

No. Although I did think, "what the fucking fuck is going on with that sick fucker?", only in Greek.

[Tanasinn]

On another note, did anyone else think Kano wins when they saw the words ripped out heart and MMA fighter?

Close, my first was "FATALITY."

[Xisiqomelir]

This sounds more like a PCP story than a psilocybin story, to be honest.

[Simon_Jester]

Giving a professional fighter in a harsh fighting sport hallucinogens might make him have more violent hallucinations than an ordinary person would.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I thought of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

[Darth Wong]

How is it that Andrea Yates drowns her children but is ruled not responsible for her actions due to depression, while this guy murders someone while obviously in a hallucinatory state, and is ruled fully responsible?

[Grumman]

How is it that Andrea Yates drowns her children but is ruled not responsible for her actions due to depression, while this guy murders someone while obviously in a hallucinatory state, and is ruled fully responsible?

He deliberately rendered himself insane by illegal means. To hold him accountable for the consequences of that crime does not seem unreasonable to me.

[Darth Wong]

How is it that Andrea Yates drowns her children but is ruled not responsible for her actions due to depression, while this guy murders someone while obviously in a hallucinatory state, and is ruled fully responsible?

He deliberately rendered himself insane by illegal means. To hold him accountable for the consequences of that crime does not seem unreasonable to me.

True, but Andrea Yates was not hallucinating; a depressed person is still aware of what she's doing. She was perfectly aware that she was killing her own children. She even had a religious rationale for doing it, ie- killing them so they could enter Heaven in a state of grace before being corrupted by the worldly world. If that can somehow amount to absence of responsibility, it seems to me that the bar is set pretty low.

[Flagg]

Wasn't there more to it than just depression?

[mr friendly guy]

How is it that Andrea Yates drowns her children but is ruled not responsible for her actions due to depression, while this guy murders someone while obviously in a hallucinatory state, and is ruled fully responsible?

He deliberately rendered himself insane by illegal means. To hold him accountable for the consequences of that crime does not seem unreasonable to me.

True, but Andrea Yates was not hallucinating; a depressed person is still aware of what she's doing. She was perfectly aware that she was killing her own children. She even had a religious rationale for doing it, ie- killing them so they could enter Heaven in a state of grace before being corrupted by the worldly world. If that can somehow amount to absence of responsibility, it seems to me that the bar is set pretty low.

It depends on the severity of the depression really. Its possible for someone to be psychotic from depression. That being said, Yates doesn't sound that way based on what you typed, so in the answer to your original question, maybe its a double standard.

[B5B7]

The sentence does seem a bit harsh, considering the seeming circumstances.

Witnesses say the two had ingested hallucinogenic mushrooms before the attack and believed they were involved in a struggle between God and the devil.

So, which one won?
Also, what do they mean by "witnesses"??

[Sea Skimmer]

Wasn't there more to it than just depression?

Yeah, she was outright psychotic and had been medicated and hospitalized for this several times in the years before the murders. If she had been a single parent she would have lost custody of her children and it would have never happened.

[Serafina]

That depression can cause psychotic episodes is right there in the ICD-10: f32.3 is a "severe depression with psychotic episodes".

And the rationale that you can avoid taking drugs, while it is much harder (if not impossible) to avoid acquiring a mental disorder - and that thus the latter makes you less guilty - does fully apply.

It's like a drunk driver who runs over a child compared to a driver who has a seizure and thus runs over a child. Both were disabled while driving, but the former chose to get drunk. Thus his actions directly caused the collision, while the driver who had a seizure took no action that he could control which lead to that result. The drunk driver was also aware what drinking alcohol and then driving could cause, while the driver with a seizure had no idea that he would have a collision.

Likewise, this guy here was aware (or should have been, as an adult) what hallucinogenic drugs can cause, and he could have chosen not to take them.
Yates was not aware that whatever actions lead to her depression would cause the depression, and she could not choose not to have the depression either.

[Lord of the Abyss]

And the rationale that you can avoid taking drugs, while it is much harder (if not impossible) to avoid acquiring a mental disorder - and that thus the latter makes you less guilty - does fully apply.

Not in the case of Andrea Yates, who suffered from severe postpartum depression and from and postpartum psychosis, and was told by her psychiatrist that having more children would guarantee severe mental problems.

[TheFeniX]

I remember this from a year or two ago. Sure, the guy is technically an MMA fighter, but this shit was played up on the news as if it was an attack on the sport itself, like Chuck Liddell went crazy or something. If he wasn't an MMA fighter (or something else like it) it wouldn't even had been mentioned except in passing. It was weird because this was only a month or so after the guy's first professional fight for some backwater promotion (IIRC). His record was like 1-0-0. Well, I guess it would be 2- oh shit I'm a terrible person.

I heard accounts the guy was already pretty unstable, but I never bothered to verify them. Shit was just too surreal.

[Atlan]

On another note, did anyone else think Kano wins when they saw the words ripped out heart and MMA fighter?

Kali Ma! KALI MAAA!

[Darth Wong]

And the rationale that you can avoid taking drugs, while it is much harder (if not impossible) to avoid acquiring a mental disorder - and that thus the latter makes you less guilty - does fully apply.

Not in the case of Andrea Yates, who suffered from severe postpartum depression and from and postpartum psychosis, and was told by her psychiatrist that having more children would guarantee severe mental problems.

And yet she had them anyway, so if we're going with this rationale that it's different if you knowingly took the action to make the problem worse, then we're back in the same boat of asking why the treatment of the two cases is so different.

[Saxtonite]

I know a wrestler who is a bit anti-drug, partially due to being on a bunch of anti-depressants when younger. He got off of them and has changed his personality noticeably when doing so. Perhaps stuff like this is why he also is that way - to the extent of even stuff like Marijuana.

Also what sort of drugs was he on that he ended doing THAT? Someone mentioned he might have been on PCP. I don't think LSD would do that to people, or even shrooms

[Broomstick]

I don't think drugs would do that to normal people, but someone who is susceptible to mental disorders and/or has problems with aggression? Sure, they could. Drugs lower inhibitions, interfere with judgement, and otherwise fuck with your brain allowing any lurking Bad Stuff to come out. Drugs don't make a person do these things, just make it more likely an individual with such problems will act out.

[Simon_Jester]

And yet she had them anyway, so if we're going with this rationale that it's different if you knowingly took the action to make the problem worse, then we're back in the same boat of asking why the treatment of the two cases is so different.

Because it's a different order of responsibility.

The decision to take a drug is a one-off thing. You do or you don't, there are laws specifically there to stop you from doing it, the consequences unfold very predictably like clockwork in a matter of hours.

The decision to do something that might cause you to have a relapse of mental illness? Not so much. It's very qualitative, it's harder to avoid (even if it's "have another baby and you'll relapse into postpartum depression," you may underestimate just how bad your next round of it will be). There's no law against having babies, as there is against consuming hallucinogens. And any mental break from reality is much more gradual in its onset- it can take months for someone to really wind up going down the rabbit hole and losing track of sanity.

So holding someone responsible for something that gradually and subtly undermines their judgment, but is otherwise legal, is not the same as holding someone responsible for a single action that immediately wrecks their judgment and is illegal.