More female privilege

[Elixir]

In this case, "better man" would be a person who is capable of having a satisfying relationship with another person.

I doubt that is even possible.

Color me surprised.... NOT! But please don't keep projecting your shortcomings on others, okay?

 

[Derec]

Color me surprised.... NOT! But please don't keep projecting your shortcomings on others, okay?

I think the rest of you are deluding yourselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

Bullshit.

And this post of yours has perfectly summed up the evil that is modern feminism. You advocate murder as long as it a woman doing (or at least ordering) it.

And in this case, it's a problem in nature that 'men', or more specifically humans with a lot of testosterone and/or a particular vulnerability to its effects tend towards revenge, necessary or not. It's not hard to see how a 'woman', or for that matter anyone who is lacking in the effects of testosterone could very easily find herself in a situation where a jilted lover wants to kill or maim her as revenge, and she ends up being unable to convince skeptical law enforcement that he presents enough of a danger to actually jail him for his threats. Sometimes the religion of 'law' strikes so deep that even if they believe her, they refuse to help because the written rules haven't been satisfied to do so. Sometimes the law outright gives the revenge-minded lover free reign right until the point where she is dead and buried.

1. Women are capable of being abusive in their relationships, just like men.
2. Police should not blindly believe claims of abuse without evidence.
3. If anything, police are more skeptical over abuse claims made by men against women than vice versa.

So you should be much more understanding toward men who kill their wives (or hire hit men to do so) than women who do so.

In the face of these realities, sometimes a person will need to hire protection, but in the face of a persistent and clever psychotic revengist, more extreme measures need to be taken; it costs a lot to hire a body guard and a patient but evil person can easily outlast most people's funds to hire muscle that they otherwise couldnt manage. So they hire people to kill the fucker. And sometimes a jury of one's peers recognize the simple ethical reality of a situation at this point:

So in a nutshell you advocate murder of men by women. No other way to say it. Also, I thought advocacy of illegal acts (and murder certainly is one) was against the TOU.

The cops were being lazy or 'lawful neutral', the woman was in danger of a psychotic asshole, and it was either her life or limb, or his life or limb, or that from her perspective it was the only option she had and that she didn't do anything wrong and doesn't deserve a the consequences of conviction even of time served.

You are assuming that if a woman murders (or hires somebody to murder) her husband she is doing it because he is a "psychotic asshole" and not, like this woman, because of money or some other reason. And do you extend the same benefit of doubt to men who murder (or hire somebody to murder) their wives? Do you assume that the wife was a "psychotic asshole" and think that "he didn't do anything wrong and doesn't deserve a the consequences of conviction even of time served"?

That isn't female privilege, and is a perfectly reasonable situation where a jury would acquit someone even in full light that they did it.

If you extend this "right to murder" to women and only women then this is the very definition of privilege.

Was it what happened here? We don't know. But I'm going to guess from the way things went down and that most people are mostly right most of the time that the accusation that this is privilege rather than defense of the innocent is spurious.

This woman is anything but "innocent". There is no evidence her husband was abusive and even if he was, that does not justify murder. She could have just left him.

I hear so much blah blah blah whining that it's hard to pick out what, if any, actual points you have here.

We have the evidence that a jury of her peers already failed to convict her once, which indicates at least some of the facts presented to them pointed to the idea that she is 'innocent'. You keep saying 'women abuse men too'. Well women kill men, too, but looking at the actual numbers, they indicate that women are far more likely to be abused, with 1/7 men being abused severely vs 1/4 women, and like it or not, people who are taking testosterone get bigger and angrier on average than those who don't.

You still have yet to establish what thing she did that is ethically suspect. When it is, in a person's mind, the choice between killing someone and being killed, severely injured, or maimed, then what choice do they have, especially when they are personally incapable of rebuffing an attacker, where do you get off saying she should be tortured no matter what she chooses, either by a psychotic revengist or a psychotic government? As I recall on several occasions, there have been discussions about people defending themselves in which you have entirely waived responsibility for killing in self defense, or even when people THOUGHT that they MIGHT be in danger.

I'd go so far as to say I'd nullify any jury where I see someone honestly put in that situation, regardless of their gender.

It's not so simple as 'oh, she could have just left', especially if he has resources or is himself capable of tracking people down. I have a friend who was tracked down by a psychotic ex and you want me to just say THIS woman could have left? And with what resources? The resources that abusive assholes strategically deny their victims?

The fact is, sometimes people don't have options, and that's because our government has no mechanism to allow people to disappear from bad situations.

We are in a subject that neatly fits into a crack in the criminal justice system and it hurts those without testosterone far more than those with it. I'd be all for a government program that offers protective identity changes to those who need them, but I'm guessing that because that benefits those without testosterone more than those with, you'd call that 'privilege'.

 

[laughing dog]

I know of no case where a man is recorded hiring a hitman and who made the defense that he was play acting and that he was entrapped. Do you have any cases like that where the man was convicted? After all, someone who is concerned with equality in the law would wish to compare apples to apples, not apples to turds.

Obviously we should strive to compare like and like, but if you demand too many details you will never find a basis for comparison.
A case of a spouse hiring a hitman and instead ends up talking to a cop pretending to be a hit man is the apple. The exact excuse the defendant offers is too specific.

No, the excuse is important since Cops was shooting in the area. I do like that you are already making excuses for your lack of relevant comparisons.

 

[Derec]

, the excuse is important since Cops was shooting in the area. I do like that you are already making excuses for your lack of relevant comparisons.

I do not see how that is relevant.
Should all criminals caught by cops who are filmed by Cops get off scot-free? Or only those with whom you sympathize on ideological grounds (radical feminism )?

 

[Derec]

Jarhyn: "men are evil and it's ok for women to kill them"

I hope you never serve on a murder trial, especially one where a woman has murdered a man. Because you are very biased to seeing women only as victims of evil testosterone-laden men.

 

[Jarhyn]

Color me surprised.... NOT! But please don't keep projecting your shortcomings on others, okay?

I think the rest of you are deluding yourselves.

At some point you should ask yourself whether it is the rest of the world, or merely yourself, that has the problem, especially in a world where people used to support your way of thinking but have since stopped.

 

[Jarhyn]

Jarhyn: "men are evil and it's ok for women to kill them"

I hope you never serve on a murder trial, especially one where a woman has murdered a man. Because you are very biased to seeing women only as victims of evil testosterone-laden men.

You have, here, mischaracterized my argument with a straw man, and I do not appreciate it. My argument was that IFF it looked like a person's valid concerns were ignored by law enforcement or overlooked by the letter of the law insofar as defending themselves from a deranged attacker, THEN I would acquit them. The shape of the weapon that they use for that has no bearing on the situation.

 

[Derec]

At some point you should ask yourself whether it is the rest of the world, or merely yourself, that has the problem, especially in a world where people used to support your way of thinking but have since stopped.

My point of view is that murder is wrong.
My point of view is that men and women should face equal punishment for equal crimes, and that being female should not give one advantages in the criminal justice system.
Why should a position like that be in any way controversial?

Your position is that it is ok for women to murder men and that's very fucked up, not to mention explicitly sexist.

 

[Derec]

You have, here, mischaracterized my argument with a straw man, and I do not appreciate it.

I have not. Your argument is that men are evil because we have testosterone and that murder is the only way poor, innocent women can escape evil testosterone-laden men.

My argument was that IFF it looked like a person's valid concerns were ignored by law enforcement or overlooked by the letter of the law insofar as defending themselves from a deranged attacker, THEN I would acquit them. The shape of the weapon that they use for that has no bearing on the situation.

Even if a woman was abused she can still leave and does not need to resort to murder. Murder is still wrong and a woman who murders (or hires somebody to murder) should face the same consequences than a man who murders (or hires somebody to murder) does. Anything else is female privilege.

 

[LordKiran]

I have not. Your argument is that men are evil because we have testosterone and that murder is the only way poor, innocent women can escape evil testosterone-laden men.

My argument was that IFF it looked like a person's valid concerns were ignored by law enforcement or overlooked by the letter of the law insofar as defending themselves from a deranged attacker, THEN I would acquit them. The shape of the weapon that they use for that has no bearing on the situation.

Even if a woman was abused she can still leave and does not need to resort to murder. Murder is still wrong and a woman who murders (or hires somebody to murder) should face the same consequences than a man who murders (or hires somebody to murder) does. Anything else is female privilege.

You know Derec, it becomes really hard for people to take you seriously or even like you when you constantly reinvent their arguments into something that sounds far less reasonable than what they actually said. is your position or skill in debate so weak that you can't stand on your own two legs without resorting to such dishonesty?

 

[laughing dog]

, the excuse is important since Cops was shooting in the area. I do like that you are already making excuses for your lack of relevant comparisons.

I do not see how that is relevant.

Of course you don't. Because you have no factual basis for your claims about the sure conviction of a man in the same situation. You are only fooling yourself.

Should all criminals caught by cops who are filmed by Cops get off scot-free? Or only those with whom you sympathize on ideological grounds (radical feminism )?

I think all people who are pretending to be criminals to make film for cops should get off scot-free. That is her defense. If it is true, then she should get off. If it is not, then she should not. Do you agree or does your misogyny require innocent women being found guilty?

 

[Jarhyn]

I have not. Your argument is that men are evil because we have testosterone and that murder is the only way poor, innocent women can escape evil testosterone-laden men.

My argument was that IFF it looked like a person's valid concerns were ignored by law enforcement or overlooked by the letter of the law insofar as defending themselves from a deranged attacker, THEN I would acquit them. The shape of the weapon that they use for that has no bearing on the situation.

Even if a woman was abused she can still leave and does not need to resort to murder. Murder is still wrong and a woman who murders (or hires somebody to murder) should face the same consequences than a man who murders (or hires somebody to murder) does. Anything else is female privilege.

No. My argument is that SOMETIMES, the situation is such that one party in a domestic situation is smaller and less physically able to resist the abuses of the other party, and that SOMETIMES one party in a domestic situation ends up tracking the other even when they leave with the intent to hurt them, and that the situations in which this happens, the person unable to otherwise defend themselves is generally lacking in testosterone, and the psychotic asshole is full of the stuff. That is not 'murder' in your usage of the word here. It is self defense. Do tell me how it is self defense when a cop shoots someone with an iPhone, but it isn't when someone tries to end a person that has a history of, and future promises to injure, main, or kill someone?

You have again characterized the death of an abuser in all cases at the hands of the abused as 'murder'. Many times the only way out of a bad situation is stepping over a corpse, and you can rail and whine and moan over that all you want.

Now, please stop inventing arguments and putting them on me.

 

[Derec]

You know Derec, it becomes really hard for people to take you seriously or even like you when you constantly reinvent their arguments into something that sounds far less reasonable than what they actually said. is your position or skill in debate so weak that you can't stand on your own two legs without resorting to such dishonesty?

I am not reinventing her argument, I am condensing it.

 

[Jarhyn]

You know Derec, it becomes really hard for people to take you seriously or even like you when you constantly reinvent their arguments into something that sounds far less reasonable than what they actually said. is your position or skill in debate so weak that you can't stand on your own two legs without resorting to such dishonesty?

I am not reinventing her argument, I am condensing it.

No, you're inventing them, by changing words with important meanings to words with different meanings. That's called dishonesty where I come from.

 

[Derec]

No. My argument is that SOMETIMES, the situation is such that one party in a domestic situation is smaller and less physically able to resist the abuses of the other party, and that SOMETIMES one party in a domestic situation ends up tracking the other even when they leave with the intent to hurt them, and that the situations in which this happens, the person unable to otherwise defend themselves is generally lacking in testosterone, and the psychotic asshole is full of the stuff. That is not 'murder' in your usage of the word here. It is self defense. Do tell me how it is self defense when a cop shoots someone with an iPhone, but it isn't when someone tries to end a person that has a history of, and future promises to injure, main, or kill someone?

Your evasive uses of terms such as "lacking in testosterone" to make it appear you are not making gendered arguments to absolve women, and only women, for responsibility for murdering somebody are quite transparent.
If domestic violence occurs, why should it matter if the perpetrator has more testosterone or less?
And domestic violence is not a justification for murder. It might be justification for self defense, but not murder. If a woman loads a shotgun and murders her husband in his sleep that is cold-blooded murder no matter her justification. If she hires a hitman, that is cold-blooded murder and is not justified no matter what. There are always other avenues of escape.

And note that your attitude has caused women to claim "abuse" every time they murder a man because they can be assured a great deal of sympathy that way. That's how Mary Winkler got 60 days, even though there was no evidence of abuse. It's just a handy excuse murderous female can and do use to bamboozle people like you. Note that this excuse does not work for men. A man can't murder his wife in her sleep and claim she abused him and get off with 60 days.

You have again characterized the death of an abuser in all cases at the hands of the abused as 'murder'. Many times the only way out of a bad situation is stepping over a corpse, and you can rail and whine and moan over that all you want.

Yes, murder of an abuser is still a murder. That is different than self-defense, but hiring a hit man is not "self defense" even if this woman was abused, which she wasn't.

Now, please stop inventing arguments and putting them on me.

And you please stop hiding behind testosterone levels when you mean to say "man" and "woman".

- - - Updated - - -

That's called dishonesty where I come from.

You mean like using "lacking in testosterone" as cypher for "women", whose side you always take.

 

[laughing dog]

You know Derec, it becomes really hard for people to take you seriously or even like you when you constantly reinvent their arguments into something that sounds far less reasonable than what they actually said. is your position or skill in debate so weak that you can't stand on your own two legs without resorting to such dishonesty?

I am not reinventing her argument, I am condensing it.

The condensed version of your argument is "Woman is guilty because she is a woman."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I see no reasonable doubt. Just a feeble "I did not mean it seriously" defense that would have been laughed out of court if a man had attempted it. Again - female privilege.

- - - Updated - - -

She (her lawyer?) claims they made it all up for reality TV.

Hardly a believable story, especially since it wasn't until the trial she and her lawyers came up with it. It's a blatant lie and people who believe it are idiots.

Maybe it's that it looks like the police tried to entrap her so they'd have a good episode on "Cops." It's pretty screwy.

Yeah, it looks like they fucked the case up badly enough that some people aren't willing to convict.

 

[Derec]

Of course you don't. Because you have no factual basis for your claims about the sure conviction of a man in the same situation. You are only fooling yourself.

You are fooling yourself. Again, do you know of any man not convicted in a similar case? I.e. murder for hire where the offer was on tape.

I think all people who are pretending to be criminals to make film for cops should get off scot-free. That is her defense. If it is true, then she should get off. If it is not, then she should not. Do you agree or does your misogyny require innocent women being found guilty?

Her claim does not make any sense. Play-acting requires both parties to be in on it. If you tell a cop (whom you think is an undercover agent) that you are 5000% sure you want your husband dead and offer him money to murder him, it is ridiculous to say that she did not mean it. The only reason you deny her excuse's ridiculousness is that she is a woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it looks like they fucked the case up badly enough that some people aren't willing to convict.

They got her on tape ordering a hit on her husband. It is an open and shut case, or at least it would be if it was a man.

 

[Derec]

The condensed version of your argument is "Woman is guilty because she is a woman."

No, she is guilty because she offered an undercover cop money to murder her husband.
Did you even watch the videos?

P.S.: Despite being on house arrest she managed to get herself knocked up. I wonder who the baby daddy is. My guess would be the smarmy lawyer from her press conference.