Sue in El Paso
Here’s a very local answer to question 3:
You need to switch your Country station to
94.7.
At 12:23 Mountain Time this afternoon (Sunday) Mike McKay played “Goodbye Earl.”
And at 5:57 (15:57) that afternoon I played it, too.
Okay, back to questions 1 & 2.
Let’s see: first time he tried to kill her, it was by piling stuff outside the doors of the house she was staying in, and setting it afire. Second time, he shot at her without warning on the subway as she was headed home from work.
Proper self-defense wouldn’t have made a bit of difference. Fortunately, luck was on her side. But if it hadn’t been, she’d be dead.
Lib, would you please supply a word with which we can refer to a group of individuals who may share some, but not all opinions? Who may, as a group, demand one freakin’ thing?
Peace,
mangeorge (My “brothers” keeper)
Hey, Doug, thanks!
Actually the competition is playing it, too, after much consternation & discussion on the morning talk show.
From what I’ve heard, it’s more the small market stations who are the only station in the area & who are highly sensitive to not offending the advertisers who are reluctant to play this song.
Nice discussion on the self-defense issue here. Here’s an interesting segue or hijack -
On Friday morning last week, Texas executed a 62 year old woman for murdering her husband.
Here’s what I know of the story -
She was married to 5 different men.
Marriage #1 (hearsay only) ended in the death of her husband under suspicious circumstances, but she was never indicted for murder.
Marriage #2 ended when she was found guilty of shooting & injuring husband #2. They divorced.
Marriage #3 (hearsay again) ended in divorce.
Marriage #4 ended in the disappearance of hubby #4.
Marriage #5 ended in the disappearance of hubby #5. Eventually a search of her home & yard turned up not only the body of Hubby #5 with a gunshot to his head & dumped in the ornamental well in the front yard, but also the body of hubby #4 with a gunshot to his head & buried in the backyard.
She was convicted of the murder of hubby #5. Either her lawyers didn’t raise the issue, or were prevented from presenting evidence at that trial that she was chronically abused, not only by hubby #5, but by hubbies #1-4 as well.
Her case became a cause celebre for death penalty opponents, and many campaigned to have the domestic violence evidence re-examined & considered as possibly justifying her actions, but, well the TX governor certainly wants to look like a good conservative right now for reasons totally unrelated to this case…
I think leaving town (& the state, if necessary) & starting over is a viable alternative in most DV cases, but that approach further victimizes the victim & is inherently unfair. Furthermore, some men (and some women) are just so mean-spirited that they will spend the rest of their lives pursuing, with murderous intent, a spouse who has left them, and there is no sure recourse to prevent this from happening.
So, while I think that in extreme cases the murder of an abusive spouse might be justifiable, I suspect that in some cases, the woman is understandably angry at having to leave her home & everyone she knows and start over somewhere else & decides it’s more “convenient” to off the husband; this is not justifiable. I also have real trouble believing that the extreme situation could really happen to one woman 3 or 4 times…
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
RTE:
There will always be extreme cases, and there will always be innocents who get hurt. I haver never seen or imagined a system of justice which could be perfectly administered by human beings to protect every innocent and punish only the wicked. I truly wosh that the woman in your story had found a more enlightened reception from the Maryland police, but that does not mean I want to issue carte blanche to every battered person who decides to murder their abuser. What I hope is that we as a society (there’s that word again, Lib) will move toward zero tolerance of abuse within any relationship. When the very first blow struck results in swift and sure consequences from both the authorities and the victim, we may finally start dealing effectively with the problem. There will still be dangerous, predatory assholes, though. There will still be deserate, delusional victims to perpetuate their arc of the cycle.
A few years ago I came out of a 7-11 and saw a man beating a woman with a wooden dowel. I stopped him, and I told him that he was not going to hit her again in front of me. She said it was all right. I told her that I would take her anywhere she wanted to go if she wanted to leave. She got into the guy’s car. He laughed and then shouted curses and threats at me as they drove away. My blood pressure still pounds when I think of it.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Not if the abuser if determined to hurt the woman.
Why not? Why would level of premeditation have an effect on whether a killing is justified? Self-defense is self-defense.
No, I think that the controversy shouldn’t be swept under the rug.
Cristi posted 02-27-2000 10:23 AM
Self-defense and insanity are two completely different defenses. And I don’t see how allowing oneself to trade sanity for security gives one the right to kill someone.
Spiritus Mundi posted 02-27-2000 12:54 PM
He wasn’t making light of their fear; he was making light at your attitude that the women are just afraid, and not really threatened.
If you can show me a passage where I stated or implied that the fears were unfounded, I will be happy to retract it. If not, I will ask you to retract your statement that I posess such an attitude.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
To AKAmame
It may also not be an option because sometimes these creeps just come after you, like you’re property. Or they threaten family members. One woman was told by her husband that if she when home to her parents, he would burn their house down. She left and their house burned down mysteriously not one week later. She went back to him. Sometimes killing the creep seems to be the only option available to get free.
To Cristi:
Garth Brooks also did a song called Daddy loved Momma in which a man comes home early to find his wife was out with another man, then barrels his big rig into the motel room where they’re screwing around. (As far as I know, none of the song was cut because of sensitivity issues) This is OK, but a woman who kills her abusive husband is bad? Oh, excuse me. I forgot. As one judge put it, “This will say it’s OK to kill your husband.”
To Spiritus Mundi
The woman in The Burning Bed did make every effort to leave her situation, but found little help. Once she left him and went on welfare to help get back on her feet. When her husband (I think he was her ex at that time) moved in with her, the agency said they couldn’t remove him. All they could do was stop her payments because a man was living with her, which was not what she would want. Not very helpful to her.
Bitch by Birth
Spiritus Mundi posted 02-29-2000 12:31 PM
Spiritus Mundi posted 02-27-2000 09:20 AM
[/quote]
2) NO! If you are being beaten, leave. If you are stil afraid, take steps to ensure your safety. If the beater tracs you across three states and comes after you again, then defend yourself appropriately. This does not mean shoot him as soon as he rings your doorbell. It might mean shoot him after he breaks into your home. Murdering someone in their sleep because they scare you is not justified.
[/quote]
That sure sounded like you think that women that “take steps to insure” their safety aren’t in any danger, and your choice of the word “scare” instead of “threaten” is, I believe, what led to Lib’s remark.
The Ryan:
I say “take steps to ensure your safety” and you hear “in no danger”? I really have no idea how to respond to that. In general, I do not feel impelled to protect myself when there is no danger. Perhaps your experience differs.
“Scare” is the appropriated word. It places the focus on the emotional state of the victim, which is central ot the syndrome. It carries, in fact, a stronger connotation than “threatened”. Think of situations that you would descibe with “I feel threatened” and compare them to situations that make you say “I am scared”.
Do you honestly see either of those statements as implying that the fears of abused people are unfounded?
cleosia:
I am quite familiar with the psychological behavior patterns that are often associated with domestic abuse. That does not mean that I no longer get angry when I come face-to-face with them. I hope it never does. However, some of these very same, and very real, psychological effects make me less than sanguine about the prospect of trusting these victims’ judgments about the necessity of using deadly force. I have absolutely no problem with considering abuse as an extenuating circumstance, but as I have a problem with “X killed Y, but it’s all roght because Y abused X”.
There will always be tragedies on the extremes. I do not think the answer lies in providing get out of jail free card to anyone who has suffered domestic violence. The circumstances of each case need to examined and judged. That is why we have judges and juries.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Ummm, yes. What does the phrase “take steps to insure your safety” me to you? To me it means “perform acts that will result in your not being in any danger”. Sure sounds like “in no danger” to me.
You misunderstood. I said that you were implying that after the women take steps to protect themselves, they are in no danger.
What??? When a women ends up with a bullet in her head or a knife in her throat, is her fear “central of the syndrome”? You know, I may be wrong here, but my understanding is that most domestic violence-related deaths are caused by the SO rather than someone being so afraid they die.
Well, first of all, if some one ends up in the ICU, I think that it’s safe to say that they don’t just “feel” threatened; they are threatened. Being scared can be worse than being threatened because when you’re threatened, that means there’s a specific threat, and it’s possible that thaet threat can be eliminated. The condition of being scared can be caused be external factors, but ultimately it’s an internal problem. While fear may be worse emotionally than a threat, threats are a more valid basis for acting against someone.
Saying that there is never any need to kill someone to protect yourself isn’t implying that one’s fear is unfounded? Whatever.
I agree. But I think that in extreme cases women have the right to kill in self defense.
My goodness, The Ryan. Please try to pay attention to what I write, not what you expect to read.
It appears we have a simple difference of interpretation regarding “taking steps to ensure your safety”. Since I operate under the idea that it is never possible to be perfectly safe I see no implication whatsoever that after taking said steps one is in no danger. In combat, a soldier takes many steps in an effort to secure his own safety, but he is never out of danger.
What??? You expect the woman to kill her abuser after she has a bullet in her head or a knife in her throat? We were discussing the justification of premeditated murder, remember. So, yes, I believe the emotional state of the victim is important. It affects both the ability to make sound judgments and the ability to see/effect other solutions.
Your understanding is not wrong. It is entirely irrelevant to the question of justification and irrelevant to this discussion. Nobody has argued that victims of domestic violence have never been killed. Are you arguing that no victim of domestic violence has ever successfully found a method short of murder to end the abuse?
BTW – if you wish to continue drenching your replies in sarcasm and disdain perhaps we should retire to another forum.
We appear to have different understandings of teh elements of self-defense as a legal claim. The actuality of the threat is not at issue. If I reasonably believe that you are about to stab me with a knife, I can justify shooting you. Whether your knife was real (or whether you in fact intended to harm me) are irrelevant. I raise the emotional state of the victim as a significant issue. You discount it entirely as in “internal problem”.
Once again I will ask you to quote a passage where I say the words you attribute to me. I will not ask for a retraction when you are unable to do so, however, since I have seen no evidence that you posess the character necessary to admit your error.
I do too. I do not, however, agree that self-defense is ever justification for killing when the element of imminent harm is absent. I feel, for instance, that temporary insanity was the correct ruling for the woman in the Burning Bed case. Long term abuse has serious consequences on the emotional state of the victim.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Did I just imagine that you wrote that the emotional state of the victim is central to “the syndrome” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), and objected when I said that her physical state (i.e. live/dead) is more important? Did I expect you to write such a ridiculous statement?
Yes, and what soldier in his right mind would say “Well, I’ve done everything I can to protect myself, so I’m not going to kill anyone on the other side unless I absolutely have to (i.e., I’m absolutely, 100%, completely sure that if I don’t shoot, I’ll die)”? That is what you implied an abused woman should have as an attitude.
You have the audacity to include that question in a post that starts out with the claim that I should pay attention to what people say, and not to what I expect them to say? Where did I ever say that a woman should kill her abuser after being killed? My point was that the threat of dying comes from her SO, an external threat, and not from her fear, an internal emotion. Perhaps you are using “the syndrome” to refer to women killing their abusers. If so, you should have actually said so, as otherwise it is quite reasonable to assume that you are talking about the abuse itself. In addition, on 02-27-2000 12:54 PM , you posted
You seem to be using “the syndrome” for spousal abuse here.
No, we were discussing premeditated killing. Not all killings are murders.
Yes, it’s important, but it’s not central. What’s central is that there is a guy out there that may be currently planning her murder. Do you really think that this threat of being killed is less important than the fear of being killed? I don’t know about you, but I’d rather be afraid of dying and not die than not be afraid of dying and then die.
The question of whether abused women die (and whether they die of their own fear or from an external force) is irrelevant?
You have implied that women’s fear of being killed is more important than their actually being killed.
Are you intentionally trying to see how much you can misunderstand my words? I’m not saying that not killing anyone never works, I’m saying that not killing anyone sometimes doesn’t work. Is that really so difficult to understand? Try thinking about it for a while.
What??? Let’s review: I politely try to explain how your statement may have been misunderstood by Lib. You respond with a sarcastic response, and I respond in kind. If you had wanted to clarify your statement, you had plenty of opportunity to do so. If you didn’t understand what the inference was, you could have politely asked. You seem to be doing everything you can to get this in that other forum.
Now I’m confused as to what your position is. You started out saying that no one is justified in killing someone just because they’re scared. Are you now saying that they are, as long as that fear is “reasonable”?
I said that a person’s emotional state isn’t quite as important as whether they are alive or dead. Is that “discounting” their emotional state?
Majormd posted 02-26-2000 05:54 PM
Spiritus Mundi posted 02-27-2000 09:20 AM
In response to the question of whether premeditated killing is justified, you said “NO!” and followed that with an explanation of how to protect yourself, which certainly implied that the is no need to kill the abuser. If that was not your intended message, you should have said so after my first or second post. If you has said something like “No, I think that the woman is still in danger, but she should just accept that danger instead of committing homicide,” or whatever it was that was your mindset when you wrote your post, then we could have proceeded from there. Instead you falsely attributed an inference to me, and sarcastically attacked your own straw man. Why are you being so hostile?
Perhaps that’s because you have been intent on taking everything I say in the worst possible way.
TheRyan:
You raise simply too many errors to cope with all at once, I haven’t the patience. Let me just highlight a few of the most obvious.
My initial response to you, in full, was:
“If you can show me a passage where I stated or implied that the fears were unfounded, I will be happy to retract it. If not, I will ask you to retract your statement that I posess such an attitude.” No sarcasm intended, and I think you have to try pretty hard to read sarcasm into it.
Unless you are living inside a George Romero movie, dead victims are not likely to premeditatedly kill their abusers. So when we discuss the the justification of said kiling, the “physical state (i.e. alive/dead)” is absolutely non-relevant. It must be alive. If I say it to you one more time will you hear?
sigh I implied no such thing. I used teh soldier as an illustration that having taken steps to ensure one’s safety does not imply that one is in no danger. I never even attempted to draw an analogy between a soldier and a victim of abuse. However, since you seem to want that analogy, allow me to point out that the reason soldiers are not prosecuted for killings in war is not predicated upon self-defense.
You did not. You have repeatedly, however, raised the ridiculous argument that whether a victim is alive or dead is paramount in deciding whether a premeditated killing is justified by self-defense. Most of us, I believe, would agree that if the victim died before the premeditated killing took place he/she can be acquited on entirely different grounds than self-defense.
My position is that all premeditated killings are murder. I would have thought that was clear by now, if you had not demonstrated so persuasively your ability to avoid comprehension. Now, in the perhaps vain hope that I can avoid further misunderstandings let me add that I do believe that some murders can be mitigated or exonerated by circumstances.
Really? The thoughts of the potential attacker are what matters? Do you parade psychics and mediums through the courtroom to testify as to the now-dead abusers thoughts in the last moments of his life? Are you beginning to see why the self-defense argument must be predicated upon the state of mind of the “defendant”?
One more time. A victim who conceives and executes a plan to kill their abuser cannot be dead. Therefore the “question” of whether she has been killed by her abuser is not only irrelevant, it is ridiculous.
No. I have stated that one is important in deciding whether a self-defense argument is valid and the other is absurd when applied to the same purpose. I have made no statements comparing the importance of the two factors in any other context.
No.
“There will always be extreme cases, and there will always be innocents who get hurt. I haver never seen or imagined a system of justice which could be perfectly administered by human beings to protect every innocent and punish only the wicked.”
I posted that directly above your first post in this thread. Is that so difficult to understand? How about this one:
“that does not mean I want to issue carte blanche to every battered person who decides to murder their abuser. What I hope is that we as a society (there’s that word again, Lib) will move toward zero tolerance of abuse within any relationship. When the very first blow struck results in swift and sure consequences from both the authorities and the victim, we may finally start dealing effectively with the problem. There will still be dangerous, predatory assholes, though. There will still be deserate, delusional victims to perpetuate their arc of the cycle.”
You seem unclear on the concepts of “imminent” and “premeditation”.
“Premeditated killing is not justifiable as self-defense” != “there is never any need to kill someone to protect yourself”.
Some elements you might want to pay attentions to are: “premeditated”, “justified”, and “need”.
I find my
Sometime you hit the “submit” button and regret it immediately. I just experienced on of those times. I made a mistake with my last post. I should never have said:
“It is not your fault.”
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*
Spiritus Mundi posted 03-02-2000 12:53 AM
And do you have any examples of errors that I have made (actually made, and not simply had you attribute to me?)
Yes, and that was followed by a post that included the statement:
Do you really not consider that a sarcastic tone? Do really think that I read sarcasm into it that wasn’t there? The fact that you picked a post that didn’t have sarcasm in it and claimed that that somehow proved that you were never sarcastic shows that you do not have respect for logic.
Quote]
quote:
Did I just imagine that you wrote that the emotional state of the victim is central to “the syndrome” (whatever that’s supposed to mean), and objected when I said that her physical state (i.e. live/dead) is more important?
Unless you are living inside a George Romero movie, dead victims are not likely to premeditatedly kill their abusers.
[/quote]
That doesn’t address my point at all. I never said anything about whether dead people can kill their abusers. Do you really think that just changing the subject is a sufficient counter to me question? I will ask once again: did you, or did you not, object when I stated that a woman’s physical state is more important than her emotional state? And if you actually said this, then what exactly is it that I am imagining?
You’re completely missing my point. In general, a woman’s physical state is more important than her emotional state. Now, when determining whether a woman is justified in killing someone, it is of course a given that she is currently alive. But that doesn’t change the fact that in general a woman’s physical state is more important than her emotional state.
Why are you still pretending that I have disagreed with an obvious statement? Can you find a single place where I have unequivocally stated that a person who is dead can commit a killing?
Did you, or did you not, say that a woman should take steps to protect herself? Did, or did you not, say that after taking those steps, she should not kill her abusers unless she is absolutely sure she’s in danger? Is that, or is that not, similar (not exactly the same, but very similar) to a soldier that takes steps to protect himself, but does not fire at the enemy unless he is absolutely, 100%, completely sure that if he doesn’t shoot, he’ll die? What exactly do you disagree with? “I implied no such thing” is hardly a complete explanation of why you disagree with my statement.
So you used the soldier as “an illustration”, but not as an analogy? Do really expect me to take this seriously? I was simply following a generalization of the attitude you expressed regarding abused women to the situation of a soldier. If you considered that generalization to not coincide with how you would generalize your attitude to the case of a soldier, you could have explained how. Instead you pretended that I was making things up.
That’s a subjective statement at best.
Really? Care to provide a quote? Or could it be that you’re just completely misreading what I’m saying and attacking a straw man?
Apparently my mind reading abilities just aren’t up to snuff. I can comprehend just find when people actually explain their positions, but this “respond to what I mean, not what I say” stuff I find difficult.
And BTW, just because you think premeditated killing = murder, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us are bound by your beliefs.
The word “exonerate” refers to people, not actions. And if someone is exonerated of murder, that means that they aren’t believed to have committed murder, not that they are just being let of. So that statement is meaningless. If you can’t even use words correctly, why do you blame other people when you are misunderstood?
Did I ever say anything about thoughts? I said “plans”. Big difference. It’s not illegal to think about killing someone. It is illegal to plan a murder.
No, I think that when someone beats someone to the point that she has to be hospitalized, tells her that he plans on killing her if she tries to leave, and tracks her down after she moves away, I think it is reasonable to assume that he is planning on killing her.
[/quote]
quote:
The question of whether abused women die (and whether they die of their own fear or from an external force) is irrelevant?
One more time. A victim who conceives and executes a plan to kill their abuser cannot be dead. Therefore the “question” of whether she has been killed by her abuser is not only irrelevant, it is ridiculous.
[/quote]
One more time: do you see anything in that quote about a woman killing her abuser after s
Oooo – it just gets better and better. This is doubtless a waste of my time, but I will try one more time to focus your attention, The Ryan. Do you remember the OP. Perhaps you recall this question:
This is the context for all of my statements on the matter. You seemed to be having a hard time understanding it. In that context, it seems extremely clear to me that the victim of the abuse is alive. It is less clear to me why you fixate on the chance that the victim may be dead.
Yes, but it is tiresome to list them all so I will just choose a few that you continue to perpetuate.
You apparently felt that we were in a discussion of the relative importance of a victims physical and emotional states. If you think that is what the OP asked, then you are in error. Despite my repeated attempts to remind you of the question in the OP, you maintain your deathgrip on an irrelevant (though admitedly emotionally charged) point. This is an error.
You think that providing an illustration of one element of a discussion is the same as drawing an analogy to the complete situation. This is an error. I gave an example of a situation in which danger existed despite precautions. This was in response to your assertion that I had implied taking steps to ensure safety meant there was no danger. I at no point compared the victim of abuse to a soldier. You did, and attributed it to me. That was an error.
You apparently see no difference between an illustration and an analogy. That is an error. An example that demonstrates a concept is an illustration. A person who person who endlessly continues specious arguments is like monkey in a cage flinging feces at people who walk free. That was an illustration.
you I was simply following a generalization of the attitude you expressed regarding abused women to the situation of a soldier. If you considered that generalization to not coincide with how you would generalize your attitude to the case of a soldier, you could have explained how. Instead you pretended that I was making things up.
I made no such generalization. I have told you so already. You continue to say that I did. That is an error.
me allow me to point out that the reason soldiers are not prosecuted for killings in war is not predicated upon self-defense.
you That’s a subjective statement at best.
I do not recall the phrase self-defense occuring in the Uniform Code of Military Conduct or in teh Geneva Convention. If you wish to argue that self-defense is the reason that soldiers are not prosecuted for murder then please find a citation for that attitude. Calling a point subjective because you want to make a claim without evidence is an error.
me You have repeatedly, however, raised the ridiculous argument that whether a victim is alive or dead is paramount in deciding whether a premeditated killing is justified by self-defense.
you Really? Care to provide a quote? Or could it be that you’re just completely misreading what I’m saying and attacking a straw man?
the OP (again) Can self-defense be ever be used as justification for a pre-meditated killing?
you earlier that her physical state (i.e. live/dead) is more important?
You thought that I could not find such a quote. That was an error. Of course, it is now clear that you have simply been unable to remember what issue we were supposed to be discussing, so your statements really were not intended for teh context of this thread. That is a different error.
I am barely half way through your latest effort and already tired of pointing out your errors. I think I will switch to a different format.
I was answering the OP. Just because you are unable to hold a thought through an entire page of HTML does not mean the rest of the world is similarly handicapped.
“Mind” is extraneous, but otherwise I would say you have an excellent point.
Good catch. The word that I had meant was extenuated. One for you.
Oh, and you were doing so well. Plans are a subset of thoughts. It really is too bad this had to come immediately after your little harangue on the proper use of words.
Really? Care to back that up with hard facts. Remember, a conspiracy requires a conspiratorial act. In this country, we have a pretty firm tradition that thoughts without actions are not punishable by law. Even thoughts which fall into the subset “plans”.
I have quoted the OP twice in this post already. Please tell me what ambiguities you find in the context of question 2.
I attacked you when you repeatedly assigned opinions to me which I had never expressed. You may consider that “trying to find out . . .” I consider it rude.
[quote]
me “Premeditated killing is not justifiable as self-defense” != “there is never any need to kill someone to protect yourself”.
you I never said that they were logically equal; I just said that the first implied the second.
[quote]
You are wrong. I asked you to pay attention to the concepts “premeditated”, “justifiable” and “need”. Shall I assume those concepts were too difficult for you?
You are wrong again. There is a word which starts p - r - e . . . . It is an important concept. I wish you would stop discarding it every time you think I have implied something.
Earlier you said:
“‘take steps to insure your safety’ . . . To me it means “perform acts that will result in your not being in any danger”. Sure sounds like “in no danger” to me.”
Your reading. Your inference. Your error. Again.
[quote]
<
Majormd:
I apologize for the hijack of your thread.
I think there are some interesting points for debate in your OP, if anyone wishes to discuss them.
The best lack all conviction
The worst are full of passionate intensity.
*