Inmate got 'Katie's Revenge' tattoo by force

[MaNuMaNiAc]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/29/inmate.tattoo.ap/index.html


EVANSVILLE, Indiana (AP) -- An inmate serving a life sentence for molesting and murdering a 10-year-old girl named Katie was apparently forcibly tattooed across the forehead by a fellow prisoner with the words "KATIE'S REVENGE," authorities say.

Anthony Ray Stockelman, 39, was removed from the general prison population for his own safety last weekend after authorities discovered the tattoo, officials said.

Prison officials said an inmate has been identified as a suspect.

A photo of what is identified as Stockelman's forehead appeared this week on a crime blog called "Lost In Lima Ohio" that focuses on news reports about crimes against children and women.

Two prison guards suspected of supplying the picture were fired for making unauthorized copies of an evidence photo, said Rich Larsen, a spokesman for the Wabash Valley state prison in Carlisle, about 70 miles north of Evansville.

Child molesters rank near the bottom of the prison hierarchy and are often brutalized by other inmates. Tattoos are against prison regulations, but inmates often fashion crude tattoo instruments with plastic utensils and needles.

Stockelman's tattoo covers nearly his entire forehead.

"If I had to guess I'd say it's a statement from the inmates," said Collman's father, John Neace.

Stockelman pleaded guilty to abducting, molesting and drowning Katlyn "Katie" Collman, whose body was found in 2005 in a creek about 15 miles from her home in the town of Crothersville.

Police initially believed Katie was abducted and slain because she had stumbled onto a methamphetamine operation in the neighborhood, but that theory was later discarded.

Another man confessed to the killing at one point but was cleared after DNA and other evidence connected Stockelman to the crime.

:tu

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

Hopefully that will catch on so all the other sick phucks out there can get one too. Whether on the street or locked up theres no escaping that shit.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4941/katiesrevengeam4.jpg
Lost In Lima Ohio Blog (http://lostinlimaohio.blogspot.com/2006/09/katies-revenge.html)

[fraga]

OWNED to the 10nth degree....oh how sweet it is...

[Bob Lanier]

Yes, because assault is something to be applauded. :rolleyes

[fraga]

Let's see...he molested and then killed a 10 year old girl...umm...yeah...I'd say so...

[baseline bum]

Too bad they didn't get their revenge yet. If I was already doing life I'd shank every child-raping bitch in the joint.

[Bob Lanier]

He was found guilty of a crime and is being punished by life imprisonment. Your society has determined that life imprisonment is a suitable punishment for the crime, and I accept that. That the prison system cannot protect an inmate from being attacked by his fellow inmates is a failure of justice, not an application of it.

Independent vigilantism, murder, rape, and assault, are completely unacceptable in a civilized society, whether it interferes with people's childish urges towards violence or not.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

He was found guilty of a crime and is being punished by life imprisonment. Your society has determined that life imprisonment is a suitable punishment for the crime, and I accept that. That the prison system cannot protect an inmate from being attacked by his fellow inmates is a failure of justice, not an application of it.

Independent vigilantism, murder, rape, and assault, are completely unacceptable in a civilized society, whether it interferes with people's childish urges towards violence or not.how much you want to bet you'd be singing a whole different tune if that was your little girl he killed

[Bob Lanier]

I like to think that I have ethics.

But I know that I don't have a little girl.

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

I like to think that I have ethics.

But I know that I don't have a little girl.

So then you don't know shit about it.
When you do, you will know!

[Bob Lanier]

So then you don't know shit about it.
When you do, you will know!
Fuck you.

Fuck you, you arrogant asshole.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

we should just have firing squads again, thats what im all about, kill these fuckers, erase all evidence of their existence, and let it be done with

[DisgruntledLionFan#54,927]

Fuck you.

Fuck you, you arrogant asshole.


Simple, yet effective.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

I like to think that I have ethics.

But I know that I don't have a little girl.I'm just saying, I understand where you are coming from, and technically you are right, but there is a whole other perspective to the issue. The guy is lower than dirt, IMO he deserves whatever he gets. Wether its ethical to allow it its another issue.

[Bob Lanier]

we should just have firing squads again, thats what im all about, kill these fuckers, erase all evidence of their existence, and let it be done with
That would be fine. I don't have any objections to the state using murder as a punishment within the confines of the judicial system. What I do have an enormous problem with is extrajudicial assault, torture, and murder imposed on people already receiving their designated punishments, by other prisoners, often with the tacit approval of the guards.

Vigilantism is usually sadistic and inhumane, and is always unjust.

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

Fuck you.

Fuck you, you arrogant asshole.

:lol

[jman3000]

lmao @ arrogant... you just admitted that you didn't have a young girl... thus it can be concluded that your comment was arrogant as well.

[ATX Spur]

All of you are just posturing. Bob Lanier is right. Yes if someone did something horrific to our daughters, we'd want to assault them, or worse. That doesn't say anything as to whether it's right. People commit crimes of passion all the time. Doesn't mean they are right.

[Mr Dio]

we should just have firing squads again, thats what im all about, kill these fuckers, erase all evidence of their existence, and let it be done with


Exactly.
Severe crimes against the old, young & defenseless should be dealt with severely & without ANY compassion.

A really heartless fuck who lacks humanity & decency should do the honors,
If need be, I'd be that heartless fuck that shoots the offenders in the forehead. A bullet to the back of the head wouldn't be good enough.

[Mr Dio]

Hard to imagine anyone that is for throwing all the illegals out of the US in order to save tax dollars to not vote YES to kill off anyone that commits a crime like this.

Well, save tax dollars & KILL a child rapist.
It is cheaper than sustaining them in prision over a lifetime.

[SpursWoman]

I have an 11 year old little girl, and I don't think what they did to that vile disgrace to humanity was quite violent enough. So sue me.

[Marklar MM]

He will probably get ass raped, then shanked. That is my guess.

[baseline bum]

I hope he gets ass-shanked, American Me style.

[BIG IRISH]

He was found guilty of a crime and is being punished by life imprisonment. Your society has determined that life imprisonment is a suitable punishment for the crime, and I accept that.....


Maybe you accept life inprisonment as suitable punishment. I don't and
in a lot of cases you can still get paroled.

[sandman]

I like to think that I have ethics.

But I know that I don't have a little girl.




So then you don't know shit about it.
When you do, you will know!

I'll go on record to say that any man who harms my little girl will understand in the last few agonizing moments of this life what Hell will be for him in the next life.

We don't mess around with this. I don't care what "society" has deemed as appropriate punishment. I'll kill them and go out for pizza when I am done. Rest my head on my pillow and sleep the sleep of the just.

And any pontificating intellectual who has never been a daddy to a little girl just needs to SHUT THE HELL UP.

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

And any pontificating intellectual who has never been a daddy to a little girl just needs to SHUT THE HELL UP.

I have a little girl you stupid fuck why do you think I posted that.

I used the smiley because he like you don't know what the fuck your talking about so eat up a dick.

[T Park]

Gotta love Bob Lanier going Nambla and ACLU for this sick fuck.


Tatoo and beat the shit out of all the sick bastards.

Personally they should all be lit up like firecrackers for being the sick perverts they are.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Gotta love Bob Lanier going Nambla and ACLU for this sick fuck.


Tatoo and beat the shit out of all the sick bastards.

Personally they should all be lit up like firecrackers for being the sick perverts they are.

The fact that you just compared NAMBLA and the ACLU renders your argument useless.

[sandman]

I have a little girl you stupid fuck why do you think I posted that.

I used the smiley because he like you don't know what the fuck your talking about so eat up a dick.

Dude, reading comprehension. I was agreeing with your post and calling Bob Lanier the pontificating intellectual. Thus, a quote of his assinine statement followed by your rather astute observation.

You start a lot of bar fights over people looking at you the wrong way, don't you?

[Tres_Till_it_MHz]

Dude, reading comprehension. I was agreeing with your post and calling Bob Lanier the pontificating intellectual. Thus, a quote of his assinine statement followed by your rather astute observation.

You start a lot of bar fights over people looking at you the wrong way, don't you?

My bad, just fucking amazes me how one can speak volumes about shit they have no idea about.

[sandman]

My bad, just fucking amazes me how one can speak volumes about shit they have no idea about.

Dude, I couldn't agree more. Maybe it's a good thing he doesn't have a little girl.

[T Park]

The fact that you just compared NAMBLA and the ACLU renders your argument useless


Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.

[AlamoSpursFan]

I have an 11 year old little girl, and I don't think what they did to that vile disgrace to humanity was quite violent enough. So sue me.

What SW said.

I think that after sentencing, the family of the victim should be allowed the option of some amount of time (say, 2-24 hours) with the perpetrator in a sound proof room and what ever happens happens.

I guarantee that if anything even remotely close to this happened to Little ASF, the shithead that did it wouldn't even LIVE to see his sentencing hearing. And I don't care what happens to me after I exact my revenge, because she is my whole life and if I lose her I have nothing to live for. Hell, I'd probably off myself so I could continue kicking the scumbag's ass all the way to and across the River Styx.

As for this loser, I hope he was getting gang-butt-raped while they were tattooing his worthless dome.

[ATX Spur]

I'm glad 70 percent of you aren't in any sort of charge over writing of laws, law enforcement, or adjudication.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Yeah, so much for that whole "majority rule" nonsense, anyways...

:rolleyes

[ATX Spur]

Yeah, so much for that whole "majority rule" nonsense, anyways...

:rolleyes

meaning what?

[AlamoSpursFan]

You really need a sarcastic comment explained to you?

[ATX Spur]

I'm just making sure I understood you clearly, because you're talking about something I wasn't. I'm not talking about majority opinion. I'm talking about right and wrong.

[ATX Spur]

Anyways ASF, I didn't mean to pick a fight. Going to bed now. Cheers.

[SpursWoman]

I'm glad 70 percent of you aren't in any sort of charge over writing of laws, law enforcement, or adjudication.


I'm sure there are thousands of child molesting murderers who would agree with you.

[MannyIsGod]

Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.Does that mean we can compare Rush Limbaugh and NAMBLA?

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

Seeing as the ACLU recently has supported Nambla meetings, and has paid for defense attornys for pedophiles claiming that they and the little boy are "in love"


Good lord Johnny don't go there.

Seeing as how the ACLU defended speech and not the actions of the group, your argument is still rendered useless.

From your own newsletter...



ACLU defends child-molester group
Asks judge to throw out lawsuit against NAMBLA for 10-year-old's murder
Posted: December 13, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Julie Foster
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

The American Civil Liberties Union has asked a judge to dismiss what it calls an "unconstitutional" lawsuit against a national pedophile organization being sued in a wrongful death case after two of the group's members brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old boy.

The $200 million civil lawsuit, which charges the North American Man-Boy Love Association with wrongful death, was originally filed in Massachusetts Federal District Court on May 16.

As reported in WorldNetDaily, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes picked up fifth-grader Jeffrey Curley and took the boy to the Boston Public Library where Jaynes accessed NAMBLA's website. Later, the men attempted to sexually assault Curley, but the boy fought back. Attempting to restrain him, Jaynes gagged the 10-year-old with a gasoline-soaked rag, eventually killing him. The men put Jeffrey's body in a tub with concrete and threw it in a river.

According to Curley family attorney Larry Frisoli, Jaynes kept a diary in which he wrote that he turned to NAMBLA's website in order to gain psychological comfort for what he was about to do. The killer had been stalking Curley prior to the boy's murder and possessed various materials from the clandestine group.

The ACLU argues that the newsletters and other NAMBLA materials in Jaynes' possession, which contain ''photographs of boys of various ages and nude drawings of boys,'' are protected speech under the Constitution. The material does not ''urge, promote, advocate or even condone torture, mutilation or murder,'' ACLU attorneys wrote. ''Examination of the materials that have been identified by the plaintiffs will show that they simply do not advocate violation of the law,'' the dismissal motion states. ''But even if that were the case, speech is not deprived of the protection of the First Amendment simply because it advocates an unlawful act."

Both killers are now serving life sentences. The family filed the lawsuit against NAMBLA and the Internet service provider that hosted its site, arguing their son might still be alive were it not for the group and its website.

But the ACLU believes NAMBLA is being unconstitutionally ''sued for their ideas.'' According to court documents from the ACLU, the case raises ''profoundly important questions under the First Amendment,'' because NAMBLA is not being sued for making any particular statements, but simply for creating an ''environment'' that encourages sexual abuse.

''What they don't like is what NAMBLA stands for,'' said John Reinstein, legal director of the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU. ''They don't like their ideas or the notion that someone else would have accepted them,'' he told the Boston Globe.

The Curleys won a $328 million wrongful death case against their son's killers earlier this year, but since both men are penniless, Frisoli called it largely a moral victory. WND reported in July that Frisoli was preparing a class-action lawsuit against NAMBLA. If NAMBLA loses the class-action suit, individuals and parents of children who were involved in sexual relationships with members will be able to collect damages.

According to Frisoli, NAMBLA has anywhere from 300 to 1,300 members, depending on which time period is selected for the lawsuit, translating to thousands of children that would constitute the class in the suit.


And damn the ACLU for fighting for things like school desegregation, freedom of speech (however hateful or disgusting to you or me it might be, it's still speech protected by the Constitution of the United States), freedom of expression, making sure the office of the Presidency of the U.S. is not above the law, et al.

I'm not saying I even agree with as far as the ACLU goes in the NAMBLA case (I believe that speech which incites a crime is not protected by the First Amendment), but for someone that always likes to say, "Well, Kori asked me to stay here, so fuck you," when people bring up your year-long self-ban [seeing as how it's speech that no matter how stupid it was, you can yell and lie (since you did not actually do what you said you would do) all you want and nobody can force you to do different].

The ACLU didn't say, "Go fuck little boys." They said, "You can say you think the laws should be changed, you can send out literature asking for people to petition their representatives to change the laws, but you suck for the vile acts you wish to perform."

Speech that is vile, disgusting and that you and I abhor is still speech protected by one of the most influential documents in history.

[JUSTICE]

Vigilantism is usually sadistic and inhumane, and is always unjust.

First clause true, second clause false.

To claim that vigilantism is always unjust, you have to assume that whatever punishment the criminal justice system imposes is in fact just, and nothing more is appropriate. But the criminal justice system is not always (or often) just.

I mean, just take an anecdotal example: Guy murders someone, mountain of evidence against him, but police officers accidentally mishandled the most damning evidence, which is excluded from trial, and he's acquitted. This shit doesn't happen all the time (except on Law and Order), but it does happen.

Is it just for a murderer to walk free because of an ad hoc flaw in the procedural safeguards of the criminal justice system? Must we call it just simply because it was the result reached by our justice system? Or is justice a concept that exists outside of whatever system we have erected to exact it?

I think everyone will admit that the criminal justice system is capable of perpetrating an injustice at times, either by incarcerating the innocent or failing to punish the guilty. In the latter case, vigilantism can be the only thing that actually serves the ends of justice.

Now I agree that a civilized society can't allow vigilantism legally. I don't really know if tattoing the name of the little girl someone raped and murdered on their forehead is a "just" act. But ethically, in some situations, a vigilante act might be the only way to rebalance the scales or whatever. It is possible to imagine a circumstance where a private actor exacts the same punishment on a wrongdoer that the state would impose if the system hadn't failed.

How can you call that action unjust?

[ATX Spur]

I'm sure there are thousands of child molesting murderers who would agree with you.

Oh please. Agreeing with me are thousands of honest good people who don't want the State to have a mandate to brutalize citizens who have committed crimes.

[SpursWoman]

Oh please. Agreeing with me are thousands of honest good people who don't want the State to have a mandate to brutalize citizens who have committed crimes.


So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you. :)

[ATX Spur]

So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you. :)

Seriously? That's the road you're taking with this debate? I also have two arms and two feet like some of those offenders.

I'm hoping you're being as lighthearted as I am wont to perceive you.

[conqueso]

So you all have something in common with child molesting murderers. Good for you. :)

i understand the immediate visceral reaction parents with kids (especially young girls) have to this kind of shit. but being unable to divorce that vitriol from notions of justice and legality places one amongst the emotionally temperamental rabble responsible for the u.s. being a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.

[SpursWoman]

I'm hoping you're being as lighthearted as I am wont to perceive you.


Yes.

Although I'm not going to apologize for not feeling sorry for these sons of bitches and am not sorry to see that since he didn't get the death penalty that his life has got to be as miserable as one could hope.


But maybe I'm just morally inferior that way. :spin

[AlamoSpursFan]

i understand the immediate visceral reaction parents with kids (especially young girls) have to this kind of shit. but being unable to divorce that vitriol from notions of justice and legality places one amongst the emotionally temperamental rabble responsible for the u.s. being a representative democracy instead of a direct democracy.

Do you have any idea how much inconsequential shit you'd have to vote on on a daily basis if this was a direct democracy?

:lol

Having examined both sides of the argument as presented in this here forum, I'm perfectly happy siding with SpursWoman. The rest of you can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with your friends the child-molesting murderers.

[ATX Spur]

Do you have any idea how much inconsequential shit you'd have to vote on on a daily basis if this was a direct democracy?

:lol

Having examined both sides of the argument as presented in this here forum, I'm perfectly happy siding with SpursWoman. The rest of you can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with your friends the child-molesting murderers.

You haven't examined anything. You haven't said one single thing against the other side. Only polarizing statements that build straw men without talking about the subject.

Instead, you're trying to diminish my (and that of the others) legitimacy by insinuating that we would somehow cavort with these dangerous criminals. If you don't want to argue about the subject, fine. You don't have to.

[AlamoSpursFan]

Dude, it's an internet message board, it's not the floor of the United States Senate.

Settle the fuck down!

:lol

[sandman]

You haven't examined anything. You haven't said one single thing against the other side. Only polarizing statements that build straw men without talking about the subject.

Instead, you're trying to diminish my (and that of the others) legitimacy by insinuating that we would somehow cavort with these dangerous criminals. If you don't want to argue about the subject, fine. You don't have to.

Polarizing statements? Sure. Straw men arguments? Hardly. There have been several of us who are fathers of little girls who have given our perspective of our potential actions should we be found at the center of such a henious event. I don't give a damn about justifying my potential behavior to you or anyone else. In my opinion, our legal system is woefully inadequate regarding incarceration/rehabilitation of pedophiles. In respect to personal consequences, I would be willing to accept whatever society would deem as "just" to be able to send the bastard that harmed my daughter to the Sulphur and Brimstone Hotel.

Be it known: You mess with my little girl, you die.

That's no straw man. That's a straight up, take the points and the win guarantee.

What a sad day in our country when we have to discuss the "rights" of brazenly open and practicing pedophiles. God help our children.

[conqueso]

Do you have any idea how much inconsequential shit you'd have to vote on on a daily basis if this was a direct democracy?

:lol

Having examined both sides of the argument as presented in this here forum, I'm perfectly happy siding with SpursWoman. The rest of you can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner with your friends the child-molesting murderers.

I wasn't advocating direct democracy. My point was that the main reason America isn't a direct democracy is to avoid rule by the irrational whims of the masses. Wanting to maim child rapists is one of these whims. When you cool down and start to think about these things rationally instead of just acting on your initial emotional response, vigilantism appears to be a pretty unacceptable in a civilized society.

That doesn't mean getting "Katie's Revenge" tattoed on his forehead is unfair. Just uncivilized.

[ATX Spur]

Dude, it's an internet message board, it's not the floor of the United States Senate.

Settle the fuck down!

:lol

I'm calm, dude. You started arguing with me, not the other way around. I was just letting you know, if you didn't really want to argue, you don't have to. It doesn't sound like either of us need convincing.

[ATX Spur]

I don't give a damn about justifying my potential behavior to you or anyone else.


Here is the thing. Sandman (and others), I like what you are saying. But we're not talking about the same things!

I am talking about justification, and you and many other obvious parents are unconcerned with it. Which is fine. You don't have to justify what you would do, not at least to anyone here. I'm not asking you to. The only thing you owe is to the conversation, to realize that we're talking about different things.

[Good 'N Plenty]

What goes on in prison should stay in prison.

[johnsmith]

What goes on in prison should stay in prison.


Sort of like Las Vegas, only with a lot of anal raping.

[Good 'N Plenty]

Sort of like Las Vegas, only with a lot of anal raping.

You betcha!

[sandman]

I wasn't advocating direct democracy. My point was that the main reason America isn't a direct democracy is to avoid rule by the irrational whims of the masses. Wanting to maim child rapists is one of these whims. When you cool down and start to think about these things rationally instead of just acting on your initial emotional response, vigilantism appears to be a pretty unacceptable in a civilized society.

That doesn't mean getting "Katie's Revenge" tattoed on his forehead is unfair. Just uncivilized.

When did civilized equate to not only the acceptance but the defense of abase, immoral behavior of sexual deviants? Civilized societies are progressive, enlightened and educated. None of those characteristics indicate a social group that would be tolerant of the animalistic, abhorant behavior of pedophiles.

A hundred years ago a horse thief was hung for his actions. Do we hang horse (car) thiefs today? No. Why, because we have become more civilized, or is it more because our moral and value systems have changed? I'll put my money on the latter, and that is the same reason why people will argue that child molesters have rights.

[conqueso]

When did civilized equate to not only the acceptance but the defense of abase, immoral behavior of sexual deviants? Civilized societies are progressive, enlightened and educated. None of those characteristics indicate a social group that would be tolerant of the animalistic, abhorant behavior of pedophiles.

No one is defending pedophilia here (at least not yet). I think imprisoning a child rapist and murderer for life shows that society does NOT tolerate that kind of behavior. Thus, just because you don't want to allow them to be TORTURED while spending life in prison does not mean that you are tolerant of their behavior.

Allowing them to be TORTURED for their crimes is just clearly uncivilized. If taking a picture with a bunch of nude POWs and flushing their religious book down the toilet is torture, carving shit into someone's forehead is torture too. Life in prison might not be enough for someone like this, maybe capital punishment is more appropriate, but I don't see how anyone can think sadistic torture is justice. Those two concepts just seem too antithetical to coexist.


A hundred years ago a horse thief was hung for his actions. Do we hang horse (car) thiefs today? No. Why, because we have become more civilized, or is it more because our moral and value systems have changed? I'll put my money on the latter, and that is the same reason why people will argue that child molesters have rights.

I agree that our moral and value systems have changed. I would like to think that they have EVOLVED and PROGRESSED, that we are not just treading water jumping from one set of morals to another without improving in any way. So I think that hanging horse thieves is not only a DIFFERENT moral system, but also a more UNCIVILIZED one. But shit, who knows, there are a ton of people who think that people like this shouldn't even be incarcerated since it's inhumane, they should instead be rehabilitated through therapy conducted in a positive environment. Maybe those people are really more civilized than any of us.

[sandman]

I'm not necessarily advocating carving up someone's forehead, but I am not crying in my beer over it either. In my opinion, the dude shouldn't even be in jail tossing salads. He shouldn't have lived this long to begin with.

You do realize that we are talking about civilized behavior in the context of jailyard justice? No one is ever going to mistake prison life as being a microcosm of society.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not necessarily advocating carving up someone's forehead, but I am not crying in my beer over it either. In my opinion, the dude shouldn't even be in jail tossing salads. He shouldn't have lived this long to begin with.

You do realize that we are talking about civilized behavior in the context of jailyard justice? No one is ever going to mistake prison life as being a microcosm of society.

Exactly. The inmates run the place. It wasn't the guards that gave him that tat.

He violated the one of the most simple and basic rules of human behavior...you protect children...you damn sure don't intentionally harm them.

his reward for killing that girl was getting to spend the rest of his life with others who had similar disregard for societal rules of right and wrong. Now he is a victim? tough shit....

[fraga]

loud Noises