Jump to content
The World News Media

Corte Suprema confirmó libertad condicional para uno de los internos de Punta Peuco que pidió perdón


Guest Nicole

Recommended Posts

  • Guest

Se trata de Claudio Salazar, conocido como "El Pegaso", quien cumple condena por su participación el "Caso Degollados".

mgr_punta_peuco.jpg

La Corte Suprema ratificó la sentencia que concedió la libertad condicional al ex cabo de Carabineros, Claudio Salazar Fuentes, condenado por el "Caso Degollados", donde murieron José Manuel Parada, Manuel Guerrero y Santiago Nattino.

El fallo de la segunda sala del máximo tribunal fue dividido, y contó con los votos en contra de los ministros Brito y Dahm. 

"Se reproduce la sentencia apelada y, teniendo además presente que atendida la edad actual del amparado y el tiempo que lleva privado de libertad (24 años 8 meses), no se divisan fines posibles de resocialización que pudieran efectivamente lograrse con una prolongación de la reclusión, se confirma la sentencia apelada de seis de diciembre de dos mil dieciséis, dictada por la Corte de Apelaciones de Santiago en la causa Rol de Amparo N° 1122-16", sostiene el fallo del máximo tribunal.

Uno de los reos que pidió perdón en Punta Peuco

Salazar Fuentes —conocido como "el pegaso"— fue uno de los internos que participó en el acto ecuménico, donde un grupo de internos de Punta Peuco pidió perdón. 

En su discurso, pidió a "Jehová" que "perdone" sus pecados. "Te pido además, que con tu infinito poder, cambies aquellos corazones duros que, con razón o sin ella, nos detestan sin darnos cabida en la sociedad", afirmó en su testimonio que puedes revisar a continuación (los destacados son de T13).

"Estimados amigos:

Como saben, soy uno de los tres internos que más tiempo ha permanecido preso. Decir que mi vida aquí ha sido color de rosa sería mentir, pero tampoco tan terrible, y esto se debe a que aprendí a conocer a Jehová, mi Padre, con la ayuda y dirección de mi Iglesia Testigos de Jehová. Me enseñaron a tener templanza, serenidad y tranquilidad, por medio de mi Padre Celestial.

En este largo recorrido penitenciario, he visto y vivido muchas cosas, unas buenas y otras no tanto. Sin embargo, el momento que ahora nos convoca es inédito, y de mucha profundidad, pese a que ciertos sectores militantes se han encargado de denostarlo. Perdónalos Padre, porque no saben lo que hacen.

Mas, si Jehová Dios está conmigo, ¿quién contra mí?

En mis diarias lecturas bíblicas he aprendido que nadie está libre de pecado (Juan 8:7). Entonces, ¿por qué ha de llamar la atención que un grupo de presos pida ser perdonados por actos cometidos en el pasado?

En lo personal, alcancé a ser carabinero por más de veinte años, y desde luego, alguna acción realicé que produjo dolores innecesarios a las personas que debía proteger. Respecto de la solicitud de perdón acerca de mi delito por el cual permanezco preso, ya la hice sin obtenerlo de sus destinatarios.

Por lo expuesto, permítanse elevar una oración: Padre Jehová, te pido de corazón sepas personar mis pecados cometidos; sé que en tu infinita bondad lo harás depositándolos en el  fondo del océano más grande, y desde ya te doy gracias por ello. Te pido además, que con tu infinito póder, cambies aquellos corazones duros que, con razón o sin ella, nos detestan sin darnos cabida en la sociedad. Amén"

http://www.t13.cl/noticia/politica/corte-suprema-confirmo-libertad-condicional-uno-internos-punta-peuco-pidio-perdon

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 522
  • Replies 0
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Posted Images





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my perspective, when the Smithsonian Magazine covers a topic, I am inclined to trust their expertise. As for the shadows here, I see no benefit in entertaining irrational ideas from others. Let them hold onto their own beliefs. We shouldn't further enable their self-deception and misleading of the public.  
    • Hey Self! 🤣I came across this interesting conspiracy theory. There are scholars who firmly believe in the authenticity of those artifacts. I value having conversations with myself. The suggestion of a mentally ill person has led to the most obscure manifestation of a group of sorrowful individuals. 😁
    • I have considered all of their arguments. Some even apply VAT 4956 to their scenarios, which is acceptable. Anyone can use secular evidence if they genuinely seek understanding. Nonetheless, whether drawing from scripture or secular history, 607 is a plausible timeframe to believe in. People often misuse words like "destruction", "devastation", and "desolation" in an inconsistent manner, similar to words like "besiege", "destroy", and "sack". When these terms are misapplied to man-made events, they lose their true meaning. This is why with past historians, the have labeled it as follows: First Capture of Jerusalem 606 BC Second Capture of Jerusalem 598 BC Third Capture of Jerusalem 587 BC Without taking into account anything else.  Regarding the second account, if we solely rely on secular chronology, the ancient scribes made military adaptations to align with the events recorded in the Babylonian Chronicles. However, the question arises: Can we consider this adaptation as accurate?  Scribes sought to include military components in their stories rather than focusing solely on biblical aspects. Similarly, astronomers, who were also scholars, made their observations at the king's request to divine omens, rather than to understand the plight of the Jewish people. Regarding the third capture, we can only speculate because there are no definitive tablets like the Babylonian chronicles that state 598. It is possible that before the great tribulation, Satan will have influenced someone to forge more Babylonian chronicles in order to discredit the truth and present false evidence from the British Museum, claiming that the secular view was right all along. This could include documents supposedly translated after being found in 1935, while others were found in the 1800s. The Jewish antiquities authorities have acknowledged the discovery of forged items, while the British Museum has not made similar acknowledgments. It is evident that the British Museum has been compelled to confess to having looted or stolen artifacts which they are unwilling to return. Consequently, I find it difficult to place my trust in the hands of those who engage in such activities. One of the most notable instances of deception concerning Jewish antiquities was the widely known case of the ossuary belonging to James, the brother of Jesus. I was astonished by the judge's inexplicable justification for acquittal, as it was evident that his primary concern was preserving the reputation of the Jewish nation, rather than unearthing the truth behind the fraudulent artifact. The judge before even acknowledged it. "In his decision, the judge was careful to say his acquittal of Golan did not mean the artifacts were necessarily genuine, only that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Golan had faked them." The burden of proof is essential. This individual not only forged the "Jehoash Tablet," but also cannot be retried for his deceit. Why are they so insistent on its authenticity? To support their narrative about the first temple of Jerusalem. Anything to appease the public, and deceive God. But then again, after the Exodus, when did they truly please God? So, when it comes to secular history, it's like a game of cat and mouse.  
    • I'm not bothered by being singled out, as you seem to be accustomed to defending and protecting yourselves, but it's a good idea to keep your dog on a leash. Speaking of which, in a different thread, TTH mentioned that it would be great if everyone here shared their life stories. As both of you are the librarians here, I kindly ask you to minimize any signs of intimidation or insincerity. It is you people who need to be "banned" here. However, it is quite evident that you hold a negative influence, which God recognizes, therefore you are banned from your own conscience in His eyes.
    • One issue with historian Flavius Josephus is that he suggests that the Royal Captain of the (Guard) can also be regarded as General Nebuzaradan. A confusion arises from Josephus' account of the captives mentioned in Jeremiah, as he claims that they were taken from Egypt instead of Babylon. Since Nebuchadnezzar was occupied in Rilah, he directed his generals to lay siege to Jerusalem. This could potentially account for the numerous dispatches that Nebuchadnezzar would have sent to the west, but the considerable distance to Borsippa still poses a challenge. As a result, the Babylonians managed to gain control of regions such as Aram (Syria), Ammon, and Moab. The only territories that remained were the coastal cities, where the Egyptians held sway. King Josiah decided to form an alliance with Babylon instead of being under Egyptian rule. So, that part of the territory was covered until King Josiah was defeated.  It's interesting how they started back then in 4129, but still end up with the same conclusion with Zedekiah's Defeat 3522 607 B.C. 3419 607 B.C. even though their AM is different.  
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.4k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.