This post was removed.
This post was removed.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned much: Didn’t they need to literally REMOVE a chunk of his brain? Like to anyone who thinks mental illness isnt that legit of an excuse, well I think this guy was actually missing a CHUNK of his frontal lobe because they had to cut it out.
Damn, this stuff makes me so scared for my own brain’s fragility
sub sub elite local hobby jogger wrote:
This whole story is bonkers and I truly hope it is over for Ms. Infeld but the story is all too common. There has to be more effective remedies to protect people from these kinds if psychos.
I worry that this is only a temporary reprieve for her and other women. What will stop this guy from re-starting when he's out of jail? He needs to be in an institution, but apparently that incredibly difficult because our country closed all the institutions a few decades ago. Yea, there were abuses and issues, but almost seems like we need them back again.
There still are such institutions. John Hinckley spent most of his life in one. But it's next to impossible to keep someone in such a place for an entire life unless that person keeps exhibiting the symptoms that landed him there continuously. They're there ostensibly because they're "sick." Once it seems they're "cured" there is no legal way to keep them institutionalized so if that person figures out what to say, do, and not say and do you have to let them out and if it turns out they just acted as they did to get themselves released once they are they can pick up where they left off. It's a very difficult situation.
If you haven't heard about the how brain trauma can be a major factor in these cases, check out this talk
Holy crap, I've raced against this guy before. Like a decade ago or so I guess it was before his brain injury. He was pretty solid on the roads. Didn't interact with him though. Crazy how he ended up.
still has an active coaching page.
The article mentioned one of the challenges with cases like this - free speech considerations. Protection orders usually prohibit contact, coming within a certain distance of someone, etc. But it's hard to prohibit someone from talking *about* another person online. Prohibiting speech content beforehand is a "prior restraint" on speech, which as Walter Sobchak noted, the supreme court has roundly rejected. With social media, the line between direct contact and just talking about someone is blurry. And these cases are usually misdemeanors. So you have junior prosecutors weighing which cases to take and thinking about those legal issues. All that said I'd give this dude the max sentence without batting an eye. He sounds very scary.
but why tho wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/CraigDonnellySub3still has an active coaching page.
Man these posts are crazy. In the latest one, dated something like a year and a half ago he talks about running a 244 mile and all kinds of whacky stuff, mentioning a couple women at the end as well in some kind of fantasy.
Actually all the posts seem to be whacky.
elephino wrote:
byron evans wrote:He absolutely was. I remember talking to him in 2018 or '19 . I thought he was just trolling at first, but it became clear that he was btsht crazy and I stopped responding to him. Mods could probably find the threads. He posted under his real name.
You can google and find his posts. Example:
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=10065580
I think I remember this one or some threads in a similar vein. I thought it was just a bored kid doing a bit of trolling. It goes to show that some of the crazy posts on letsrun are really from folks who are not alright.
For the curious, a quick google turned up a few Donnelly posts and mentions from his college days. Apparently he was good enough to be a known name in the NAIA and then briefly on the roads after college.
burritogate wrote:
Ben Shiller wrote:
What is wrong with our society that you can tell someone not to contact you, the person contacts you again, you go to court and get a court order prohibiting him from contacting you, he contacts you again, and then NOTHING happens to the person??? if a stalker knowingly violates a court order not to contact a stalkee, there should be severe penalties (like 10+ years in jail).
We’re all at the mercy of how much police want to care about something. They’re good at ending crimes in progress, but absolutely terrible at preventing or deterring crime, or investigating crimes that have already occurred.
When police fail to deal with crime, they just blame someone else and millions buy it. Most murders go unsolved. If a shooting doesn’t put someone in the hospital, there probably won’t be an investigation at all.
The Portland Police could not have been bothered to take a dangerous predator off of their streets, but if you hold up a sign on a street corner saying they don’t actually keep the city safe, they’ll send dozens of officers to watch you like a hawk until they find some pretext to beat and arrest you.
This was a bizarre post. Locking up a stalker has nothing to do with police. It has everything to do with our courts.
Most murders go unsolved? What country are you in? Most murders are solved and solved fairly quickly. It's the ones that go unsolved that are the rarity and wind up on those shows at night.
Everyone wants the police to act and act swiftly but we also want to defund them. Everyone wants to lock up the person but we also want to release prisoners. Throw the book at him but go easy on him because he has a condition. Tough balance to keep.
Ben Shiller wrote:
burritogate wrote:
We’re all at the mercy of how much police want to care about something. They’re good at ending crimes in progress, but absolutely terrible at preventing or deterring crime, or investigating crimes that have already occurred.
When police fail to deal with crime, they just blame someone else and millions buy it. Most murders go unsolved. If a shooting doesn’t put someone in the hospital, there probably won’t be an investigation at all.
The Portland Police could not have been bothered to take a dangerous predator off of their streets, but if you hold up a sign on a street corner saying they don’t actually keep the city safe, they’ll send dozens of officers to watch you like a hawk until they find some pretext to beat and arrest you.
This was a bizarre post. Locking up a stalker has nothing to do with police. It has everything to do with our courts.
Most murders go unsolved? What country are you in? Most murders are solved and solved fairly quickly. It's the ones that go unsolved that are the rarity and wind up on those shows at night.
Did you read the story? The police acknowledged that the perpetrator was in violation of a protective order, but decided against arresting him because they forgot/failed to read his his Miranda Rights.
“Most murders go unsolved” was a little hyperbolic. The real statistic is ~40% of murders never result in an arrest of any kind, let alone a conviction.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-rate-by-type-in-the-us/Look at the clearance rates for other crimes — murders have the highest likelihood of resulting in an arrest. Any way you cut it, American police are incredibly bad at solving crime.
Runner10287 wrote:
Everyone wants the police to act and act swiftly but we also want to defund them. Everyone wants to lock up the person but we also want to release prisoners. Throw the book at him but go easy on him because he has a condition. Tough balance to keep.
Every situation doesn't have to be an either/or scenario and it's best to not think that way or promote that type of problem solving.
Runner10287 wrote:
Everyone wants the police to act and act swiftly but we also want to defund them.
Are you aware that the premise you are calling "defund police" is actually a proposal to have mental health care professionals working with police and taking the lead on some domestic violence, homeless, & mentally ill cases, to free police to deal more appropriately with cases like Infeld. One political party starting calling it "defund" police to fool those who will not/did not read about it into thinking the other party is anti-police.
For the record, before I get looped together with “defund” folks: I think we should invest in policing AND hold police accountable.
Police aren’t good at doing their jobs currently. This isn’t because of “protesters” or “liberals” or whatever else they want to blame. They just aren’t doing the job and don’t want to be held accountable. If more money helps them do the job better, I’m all for it.
I do support increasing other social services and deploying them instead of police when/as appropriate. Framing this as a “zero sum” budgetary argument was idiotic on activists’ part.
In this case, all parties would have likely benefited from alternative interventions to the police status quo wherein police fail to act until someone is actively violent.
george co wrote:
Are you aware that the premise you are calling "defund police" is actually a proposal to have mental health care professionals working with police and taking the lead on some domestic violence, homeless, & mentally ill cases, to free police to deal more appropriately with cases like Infeld. One political party starting calling it "defund" police to fool those who will not/did not read about it into thinking the other party is anti-police.
This is factually inaccurate. Prior to the death of George Floyd, "defund the police" was a fringe idea by ultra left wing activists. It was a euphamism for what they actually wanted to do, which was to dismantle or abolish police forces as we know them. This isn't hyperbole. They would have admitted it at the time.
In the aftermath of George Floyd's murder, more mainstream progressives softened the ideas more akin to what you describe. There hope was to take advantage of the collective national horror at what happed to Floyd, but knew that the ideas of their more radical friends wouldn't fly with the rest of the country.
The point being, the fringe left coined the phrase "defund the police". This is fact.
*their
but why tho wrote:
https://www.facebook.com/CraigDonnellySub3still has an active coaching page.
I came across the FB a little while ago too. Jesus that most recent post is out of whack, especially the very end.
I also came across his LRC posts before the brain injury and surgery and it definitely sounds like it turned him into 100% a different person. Like absolutely no question about it. It’s interesting to see what parts of his writing and vocabulary stuck around. Very clear that he had a very intelligent brain and now it is just completely addled.