Ed Murder is fine ... if you're a woman

[fuelair]

Sorry, if I believe that murder is never justified. The police should have put him in jail long before this point. But, she could have left or gotten a divorce. Has life become so meaningless to everyone?

Yes. the life of a piece of santorum like that is worthless except as fertilizer. The police have no choice - think court system.

 

[fuelair]

This.

I have to call troll on this OP. Since I do not choose to assume thoughtless or evil.

 

[fuelair]

I have read the article, and I am sorry, but the story is fishy enough. Sure domestic abuse is unacceptable, but murder , vigilantism and self justice, are even LESS acceptable for a stable society.

Fortunately for real people, self-defence is.

 

[joesixpack]

Fortunately for real people, self-defence is.

Did you read the article? "Self Defense" was not the mitigating factor in this case at all.

In fact, other than an oblique reference to some abuse, and the implied comparison to two other cases in which victims had allegedly abused their murderers in the past, there doesn't seem to be any description of the danger this woman was actually in at the time.

I understanding having an emotional response to violence against women because it is generally framed as a good-guy/bad-guy narrative. This isn't the reality of the situation, though.

 

[jj]

My "right-wing bias" is not clear to me at all.

What I said is that you are using the same tactics.

Stop trying to claim I said something I didn't.

 

[joesixpack]

What I said is that you are using the same tactics.

Stop trying to claim I said something I didn't.

What you didn't do was point out to me how what I said was actually wrong.

Perhaps I wasn't using a "tactic", perhaps I was pointing out a frankly racist statement. You have simply dodged my questions.

 

[bluesjnr]

Is it (ex) still alve? Really shouldn't be, you know.

Yes. the life of a piece of santorum like that is worthless except as fertilizer. The police have no choice - think court system.

Fortunately for real people, self-defence is.

What do you think should happen when a woman alleges DV? You seem to default to a violent retribution scenario every time.

 

[Information Analyst]

I don't think he's saying it's common, he's simply saying that women are more likely than men to do so.

He said it in response to my quoting figures that showed that women are several times more likely to be killed by an ex-/partner than men are, in a manner that siuggested he thought that it "explained" some of the disparity.

 

[tyr_13]

He said it in response to my quoting figures that showed that women are several times more likely to be killed by an ex-/partner than men are, in a manner that siuggested he thought that it "explained" some of the disparity.

I don't think either is useful. When discussing if a woman was justified in an act of violence because of abuse, it's useless to point to statistics about how many women are killed and abused by men, and it's useless to point to statistics of how often women are abusers. Neither supports if this woman was abused by this man and if that mitigates this woman's actions against this man.

It's a red herring.

 

[joesixpack]

He said it in response to my quoting figures that showed that women are several times more likely to be killed by an ex-/partner than men are, in a manner that siuggested he thought that it "explained" some of the disparity.

Oh Snap! I totally misread that. I understand what you mean now. Even accounting for contract killings, the rate of men being murdered by woman partners is much lower than women killed by male partners.

Sorry.

 

[Travis]

All that is just philosophical since I continue to not see anything that says she escaped a lengthy prison sentence purely because she is a woman.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Naive1000, where have you gone? I really would value your input into your own thread

 

[Naive1000]

Naive1000, where have you gone? I really would value your input into your own thread

Sorry, I've already been branded a troll and if not evil or unthinking and at the same time sexist, biased, and promoting violence against women. I don't think my input is worthwhile anymore here. Thanks anyway.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

Sorry, I've already been branded a troll and if not evil or unthinking and at the same time sexist, biased, and promoting violence against women. I don't think my input is worthwhile anymore here. Thanks anyway.

I will have a reasoned discussion with you, if you'd like. Based on what I can infer from your posts, I feel that I would disagree with you, but I don't mind that at all! There's no reason to run off if you feel that people have mischaracterized you. I get mischaracterized all the time! For an example, take a look back at my previous posts in this thread where simply saying I didn't see any evidence in the thread to support the title got Jiggeryqua telling me that I hate the patriarchy or whatever it was. And I'm still here!

 

[joesixpack]

All that is just philosophical since I continue to not see anything that says she escaped a lengthy prison sentence purely because she is a woman.

I think the OP was a bit hyperbolic, but the point that should be made is that social acceptance of violence committed by women against men has not decreased as it has with the acceptance of violence committed by men against women. Simply following this thread you see a number of posters defending the woman's actions, accepting the ruling without the slightest skepticism about her claims of abuse, and in some cases even endorsing and cheering the murder of her husband.

The courts may or may not be biased (and in murder cases, I don't generally think they are), but the court of public opinion certainly is. Assertions made about this man abusing his wife for 22 years are accepted without a shred of proof given in the article. The total lack of substantiation of her claims against the dead (and mute) victim says volumes about what the general public expectation is for men's behavior. Do you think an abused man would receive the same sympathetic response from readers of that article?

Try this one on for size;

Johnny Ray denied this, saying is intention was to "circumcise and purify" his wife who had physically and verbally abused him for 22 years.

He said he wanted to "burn a dot on her vulva" with petrol and an "angel candle" he had been given by a fortune teller so that she would not leave him for the other man.

He compared his "bizarre" idea to the Hindu love story of Lord Ram, who proved the purity of his wife, Sita, with fire after rescuing her from a demon king.

"It would be like circumcision, or just like she placed that ring on my finger at the wedding," he said at trial.

"It was like I had all the powers of the god to save my wife, my queen ... it did not occur to me that it was going to be dangerous."

Johnny Ray admitted losing control and throwing the flame and accelerant onto Sarah when she called him a "fat loser".

Jurors accepted his version of events, acquitting him of murder and finding him guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter.

In sentencing today, Justice Sulan said Johnny Ray had "deified" his wife and was "shattered" by her betrayal.

The Judge said there was "no doubt" his thinking at the time was "unrealistic, muddled and illogical".

"For the first time in your life you had confronted your wife, had found the courage to be assertive to the person who had mistreated you for 20 years," he said.

All I did was change the gender and names of the victim and the killer. Would you have some serious questions after reading this? I know I would, but the writer of this article certainly didn't feel obligated to give any more detail than this, and few (if any) posters on this very thread seemed to care. Why? Because it was a woman killing a man and popular narrative is of a victim fighting back.

Do you think the general readership would have the same emotional response to both those stories? I certainly don't. Do you think Johnny Ray would get anywhere near the support, sympathy, or benefit of the doubt that Rajini got. I certainly don't.

Do women get away with murder? I don't generally think so. Do they face lessor sentences for the same domestic violence crimes that men do? Most certainly they do, and they always will as long as Intimate Partner/domestic violence is treated exclusively as a woman=victim/man=abuser narrative.

 

[fuelair]

What do you think should happen when a woman alleges DV? You seem to default to a violent retribution scenario every time.

In the first quote, the gentleman seems to be quite sure of the facts re:his wife and her previous mate. If true (and I tend to assume that), "why is he still alive?" is a reasonable response.

The second is similar - just points out the police, on their own, , cannot keep someone jailed - that is up to courts/prosecutors. Makes, on it's own, no other suggestion.

IF the woman is in fear at all (and there will normally be evidence if that is reasonablly the case) self defense is appropriate.

What I believe in is the destruction of bullies, gangs, individuals or groups of any kind who prey on others. I do not now nor do I plan in any forseeable future to apologise or feel the slightest guilt for that. YMMV.

 

[Caper]

I forgot to address this. Domestic violence against women has been taken very seriously here in the US for over three decades. And rightly so. Australia, The UK, and the US all have domestic violence shelters. Yes, it's tough to leave an abusive situation, but I have friends who have done so successfully.

Domestic violence of the type your wife experienced is not the only dynamic. Very often the woman is the initiator of physical violence. In cases where the violence is mutual (i.e., the man is retaliating/defending himself) the man will always be taken into custody. In cases where the woman is the sole perpetrator of the aggression, the police are not so eager to act, especially when the husband asks them not to (generally because they fear further retributive violence when the woman is released).

The three police visits to the house in response to domestic disturbances with no arrests made is typical of female-on-male violence. The knee-jerk reaction to this article (and to the issues of domestic violence in general) is "that poor woman". This is fine for melodrama and fairy tales, but real life is much more complex. Abuse flows in both directions, but the court system is biased against men if favor of "the weaker sex".

I was in an abusive relationship for several years. Or, if I were a woman it would have been considered abusive. I was abused fiscally and emotionally. In divorce and custody cases, a man can have a restraining order placed against him for shouting at his wife. This doesn't go both ways, however. My ex shouted at me constantly and at one point tried to provoke me into a more serious altercation while secretly videotaping me. Everyone who knew us as a couple thought my ex was horrible, everyone who didn't know us thought I had abandon her and was a terrible human being because the cultural narrative in domestic disputes generally casts the woman as the victim and the man as the perpetrator.

The article makes quite clear why she killed her husband. It was because of his affair.

Good post. I would like to hear more of your story. I like some of the stories people have on here. You are right, women can deffinitly abuse men, in different ways and it happens more then you would think.

 

[SanityGap]

In the first quote, the gentleman seems to be quite sure of the facts re:his wife and her previous mate. If true (and I tend to assume that), "why is he still alive?" is a reasonable response.
<snip>

I am clear on the facts. There was much more to the abuse than I can put here (veeeeery slow typist!) but suffice it to say it was sadistic (she found his copies of Nazi fan mags after they were married) and psychologicaly domineering to the point that when she did finally escape she ended up stood in a supermarket crying because she had no idea what to buy. No one had told her.
"Why is he still alive?". Because my wife would not lower herself to the same level. Instead she chose to rise above it.
Just for background, his father was a serial abuser and his brothers were. His sister was the worst of them all, finally paralysing her husband by pushing him down the stairs. None has ever faced charges.

 

[myowninvention]

I am clear on the facts. There was much more to the abuse than I can put here (veeeeery slow typist!) but suffice it to say it was sadistic (she found his copies of Nazi fan mags after they were married) and psychologicaly domineering to the point that when she did finally escape she ended up stood in a supermarket crying because she had no idea what to buy. No one had told her.
"Why is he still alive?". Because my wife would not lower herself to the same level. Instead she chose to rise above it.
Just for background, his father was a serial abuser and his brothers were. His sister was the worst of them all, finally paralysing her husband by pushing him down the stairs. None has ever faced charges.

I think it is lucky for her to have found you, and her choice to rise above it is one I hope she is very proud of.
Unfortunately, many people do not escape these kinds of situations, and many escape only to become the abusers themselves. It sounds like her ex was one of the latter.

Women's rights movements have greatly improved the awareness of these kinds of situations for women in the last century. Not so much for men. I see this as a problem, and one that needs rectifying, but not by negating violence against women. I find it sad how hard it is to discuss the rights of those men in terrible situations without it turning into men vs women. Shouldn't it be non-violent people (of all genders) vs abusers(again, of all genders)?

 

[Naive1000]

I will have a reasoned discussion with you, if you'd like. Based on what I can infer from your posts, I feel that I would disagree with you, but I don't mind that at all! There's no reason to run off if you feel that people have mischaracterized you. I get mischaracterized all the time! For an example, take a look back at my previous posts in this thread where simply saying I didn't see any evidence in the thread to support the title got Jiggeryqua telling me that I hate the patriarchy or whatever it was. And I'm still here!

I guess the title was a bit to expansive, but I was just referring to the situation in the article: a woman kills her husband then claims abuse with no evidence and basically everyone accepts it without thought or critique. Why? Because if they do they're seen as the villain for even suggesting she might be less than honest. I have yet to see a case where a man has claimed abuse and basically walked because of it. It doesn't happen as far as I know. No, I'm not suggesting that an abuser should go free or that we should ignore real abuse but questioning should never be taboo. Investigating and the presumption of innocence is part of the backbone of western legal systems. For some reason these seem to have eroded away especially in cases of DV where because of "predominant aggressor" laws men who call the police for abuse are commonly the ones arrested.

Denise Hines of Clark University found that when an abused man called the police, the police were more likely to arrest him than to arrest his abusive female partner. This is partly the result of primary aggressor laws, which encourage police to discount who initiated and committed the violence but instead look at other factors that make them likelier to arrest men. When the men in Ms. Hines' study tried calling domestic-violence hot lines, 64 percent were told the hot lines helped only women, and more than half were referred to programs for male domestic-violence perpetrators. (Link)

Even if you are an abused man there's little in the way of support or fairness in the system, just look here: (Link).

I know that I need to grow a bit thicker skin here. It's probably my fault because I'm not getting my point across well. This is only the second forum I've ever posted to, so I'm not really good at communicating over the Internet yet. Since I'm pretty much a shut-in this is my main form of human contact and when you feel like you're getting beaten up it just doesn't seem worth it sometimes, but that's my problem and I'll have to get over it or move on.

...[snip]... Women's rights movements have greatly improved the awareness of these kinds of situations for women in the last century. Not so much for men. I see this as a problem, and one that needs rectifying, but not by negating violence against women. I find it sad how hard it is to discuss the rights of those men in terrible situations without it turning into men vs women. Shouldn't it be non-violent people (of all genders) vs abusers(again, of all genders)?

I'll agree that we should be looking at this from a gender neutral standpoint, because abuse is abuse. I will argue that part of the problem is the current women's rights movement, in the form of NOW, the Women's Law Project, and a few other organizations, who fought specifically against making VAWA gender neutral and had the language that was added, to make it so, stripped.