Defending yourself is not taking the law into your own hands.
Unless defending yourself is against the law, in which case the law is wrong, and any jury with any moral compass would nullify. Sadly, people still want to blame the victim here, rather than applaud her for breaking free of a monster’s control. Something that far too many victims of domestic abuse (men as well as women) fail to do.
Maybe he didn’t deserve to die. But he sure as hell didn’t deserve to have his life protected as he attempted to fucking strangle his wife for no reason.
Given that she’s married to a serial batterer, can she shoot him at any time and still be judged to be ‘defending herself’?
Because, if not, the temporal proximity to his most recent attack is relevant, but it’s also relevant that she shot him once while he was facing away from her and a second time while he was lying on the floor bleeding from his head and neck.
I wonder if part of what makes cases like this interesting is because there are very different opinions about what the role of a juror is. Would any legal types care to comment which opinion they feel is more appropriate and why?
One opinion seems to be the juror is supposed to mechanically and incuriously examine only the evidence that is presented to see if that evidence compounds to meet a certain standard of law. This approach seeks obedience to a standard that was set years, if not generations, before the incident in question but it does not seek justice per se.
Another opinion is that the juror is to examine the evidence presented, weigh it morally and pragmatically, and decide which legal definition best characterizes the actor as they have come to understand him/her. This approach is less predictable and does not favor a uniform application of justice.
It’s interesting to note that you now apparently regard the law as a mere convenience, whereas in your extensive and strenuous defense of George Zimmerman, you could scarcely stop talking about it. I suppose when it favors your side of things, you trumpet the law to the high heavens; when it doesn’t, eh… nevermind the law, what’s right is right.
At least this case gives you a more sympathetic figure as shooter. Must leave a bad taste in the mouth, giving a tongue-bath to the likes of George Zimmerman.
It kinda did, I never pretended the guy wasn’t a dick. But he was a dick who, in that instance, was in the right. I maintained, repeatedly that he was morally, not just legally, innocent. Rights don’t exist only for nice, admirable people. The head of the KKK is as entitled to defend himself against a black guy attacking him as vice versa.
However, one aspect of the law is that it’s self-correcting to an extent due to jury nullification. It was, and remains, my opinion that if there’s any (reasonable) doubt as to whether an action was illegal, or should be illegal, then a jury should acquit. The bias, by necessity, should be strongly in favour of the defendant. So the converse doesn’t apply, someone should not be punished if their action was not illegal, or only debatably illegal.
I also despise that attitude that accepts that yes, this person was being attacked, but they weren’t being attacked hard enough, so let’s punish them for defending themselves. Because you’re effectively punishing them for being attacked in that case. I’m not suggesting you have that view, just following on from your post.
Do you feel it could so be argued in this case? Was this specific woman, in your opinion, justified in using lethal force to defend herself form her husband at any time?
I think it can be argued in this case, yes, and indeed in almost any case of ongoing domestic abuse. I can’t say for certain that she was justified, but I’m reasonably confident she was, and in any case she doesn’t (or at least, shouldn’t) have to prove her innocence, others have to prove her guilt.
What evidence is there that she was not, or that no reasonable person would be, in constant fear of death or serious injury in her situation?
Well, it’s trivially easy to prove that she killed him. Perhaps someone better acquainted with the law can chime in, but I would imagine that someone making a self defense claim would have to provide some reasonable basis for this.
*Constant *fear of death? That she was not constantly seeking to evade her husband or defend herself from him, for starters. I just don’t think you can have a license to kill someone, at your leisure, because they often beat you up.
Well, there’s the famous case of Francine Hughes who was the first woman to be acquitted of murdering her husband using a “battered woman” defense, which expanded the temporary insanity definition to include not just immediate fear for one’s life to continuous fear for one’s life based on past, repeated abuse.
If you’re not familiar with the case, after years of documented abuse at the hands of her husband, Mickey, Francine Hughes put her kids in the car, returned to the bedroom where her husband was passed out on the bed, spread gasoline over his body, and lit a match. (This is why her story is also known as “The Burning Bed.”) Afterward, she turned herself in to the police. Clearly she was guilty of taking her husband’s life, and just as clearly she was not in immediate fear for her life at the time because he was asleep at the time of his death.
“(Her lawyer)… knew within minutes of meeting his client that Francine was far from your run-of-the-mill murder defendant. The story of abuse and cruelty she relayed was so vicious that prosecuting her seemed, in his mind, to betray all standards of common sense and human decency.”
This is one of the reasons I chose “Not Guilty by Reason of Temporary Insanity” as the case in the OP has essentially the same elements that the Hughes case had.
But is this where the law should go? Clearly someone who has the presence of mind to load the kids in the car, take them somewhere, and return home to immolate a sleeping person is, by definition, not insane. That is calculated, premeditated and cold-blooded murder, no matter what this asshole did to her. Is the penalty for domestic violence execution by burning without benefit of trial?
Well one would hope not, but some places still do require an affirmative defence for self-defence. Even if they do, it’s not a reasonable doubt standard, usually it’s preponderance of evidence. So, you’d need to provide some evidence to start with that she was not in fear for her life…
Yes, constant fear of death. That’s what can happen in these situations, and it’s why someone isn’t trying to evade them, they’re trying to placate them. And she was trying to defend herself from him, fortunately successfully. I suspect if she’d tried to shoot him and failed, he would have killed her - he’d just come very close to doing so. Or did you forget that? This isn’t someone who occasionally slaps his partner, it’s someone who beats her enough that the police are regularly called, and has just tried to kill her.
Anyone who wasn’t in constant fear for their life would be the unreasonable one in those circumstances. And I’m entirely in favour of the law effectively granting someone in that situation a license to do whatever they can to escape. Including killing.
Escape? She could have done that on any of the other thousands of occasions when he wasn’t beating her. She could also escape when he is lying on the ground “laughing” at her.
The lady in the other case could have simply driven off with her kids instead of burning the man alive.
As I said, she may choose not to escape, but stand her ground. But she can only do so within the bounds of lawful self defense.
Again, I sympathize with DV victims. But we can’t simply hand out murder licenses because of it. That is what the BWS defense does.
Oh, another point, one isn’t expected to escape from one’s home. The idea is ridiculous. If you’re not expected to flee from burglars, you certainly shouldn’t have to flee from someone you live with!
Anyway, I’m quite comfortable with saying that killing a persistent abuser shouldn’t be a crime. I’d be interested to see any worthwhile moral arguments otherwise.
No, he’d still have been arrested regardless of whether she presses charges. VA is a VAWA state and every jurisdiction has an arrest policy when it comes to this stuff. The Google is my friend. I got curious and tracked the case down. This case took place in Loudoun Co. VA and the Sheriffs office there said there were no arrests only because there were no injuries present any of the times they showed up. That’s kind of unusual if he is hands on with her. All it takes is a scuff mark and they go all clinky with the handcuffs.
In addition, his BAC when killed was over .24% That’s an important fact to me, because that means the man was very seriously impaired, and quite possibly not capable of attacking her (or anyone). At best, he’s going to be staggering around leaning on furniture and the walls etc.
“0.25 BAC: All mental, physical and sensory functions are severely impaired. Increased risk of asphyxiation from choking on vomit and of seriously injuring yourself by falls or other accidents.” https://www.sbcc.edu/healthandsafety/files/AlcoholMythsFacts.pdf
We know he’s at least 0.25% BAC which means he is stumbling drunk at best. The room is spinning and he’s probably nauseous and about to throw up (that starts at BAC .20 BTW). It’s hard for me to buy that he’s physically capable of a focused sustained attack on anyone.
The last thing I could find on the case was back in June.
Yeah hi. I lived it for over three years. I have experience, idea and knowledge of what it is really like. I have the mental, emotional, physical and financial scars to prove it. You might not want to generalize like that.
I’d suggest you go for jurors who have no significant experience with someone with PTSD + personality disorder as this woman has been diagnosed. Those who have experience with someone who suffers from PTSD +PD may be less sympathetic to the defenses version of events (as I am).
I’d also be curious as to whether you plan to call the children as witnesses. I’d suggest not, because since she does actually have PTSD and PD, it is entirely possible that the children have been victims of her outbursts of rage (as well as his) and that may reflect poorly on her in the jury’s view.
Unless you know the children never called 911 and there’s no record of her behavior towards them that is anything less than exemplary. 911 transcripts/reports could be very bad news if it’s frequently other people besides her calling, especially if it’s “Mommy is hitting daddy again!” type stuff.
I doubt those here defending her would do so for very long if that turns out to be the case. And with her having PTSD +PD, it’s very, very possible.
As an aside, I am aware of my own biases in this case, but please believe me when I say, if you have lived through the tornado of being with someone with PTSD +PD, you’ll know exactly why those biases exist. I do not hate my ex, and I hope she finds some help and peace in her life, but I would literally run the other way if I saw her coming. And I would dial 911.