In the news today is a story of Peter Braunstein who dressed up as a firefighter for a Halloween party in 2005 and then assaulted a former co-worker. In his letter to the judge prior to sentencing, he stated, “In fact, I did plan the crime intently, the madness resides in the fact that I had no motive or intent. Thus, once I attacked the victim, I had no idea why I was there, or what to do.” Does anyone else see the complete and utter contradiction? “[He] did plan the crime intently” but “[He] had no motive or intent”. There is no way a person, sane or crazy, could not have intent but plan something “intently”. It makes absolutely no sense! The defense attorney tried to convince the jury that Braunstein’s mind “broke”, but they took less than four hours to find him guilty. I have to say that this man obviously had intent if he brought a VIDEO RECORDER to tape the incident. I think this is a matter of getting caught and using the “insanity plea” to try and lessen the consequence. I hope this guy gets the recommended sentence of 25 to life.

To read the full article go to:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/18/fake.firefighter.ap/index.html