• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Attempted honor Killing in Lacey?

ZiprHead said:
So how much time did the father get? The report above says he will stay in jail until sentencing. Has he even been sentenced yet?
Click to expand...
Likely in jail during the investigation/trial. So they'll count that as time already served.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Bomb#20 said:
Unlikely it had anything to do with the jury's politics. They were no doubt instructed that to convict of attempted murder it had to be beyond reasonable doubt that the guy intended to kill his daughter, as opposed to merely injure her, torture her, get control over her, and pack her off to a forced marriage to a man who would probably rape her. ...
Click to expand...
The link is video, I'm not going to watch it. But I agree with your assessment--I don't think there was intent to kill.
Click to expand...
That's not my assessment. I haven't watched any footage of the attack, so my only assessment is that the jurors watched it and the majority probably assessed it correctly. And since we have no way of knowing if the vote was 11-1 for conviction or 11-1 for acquittal or somewhere in between, I have no opinion on whether he meant to kill her.
Click to expand...
Let's do a little thought exercise. How out of your mind do you need to be to put your hands on your teenage daughter's throat, and squeeze hard enough to make her pass out / die? Personally, I can't imagine ever being that angry (and I can have a short fuse). I can't come up with a scenario for it. I imagine you are likewise.

There is no rational reason for his actions other than attempt to kill. I have no idea why the jury would acquit. In the moment of rage and feeling of losing control, this person attempted to resolve a problem with a method of cruel violence. The jury fucked up.
Click to expand...
I don’t entirely agree that his intent must have been to kill her. Her death would have been a predictable outcome but it is possible that he was so enraged and had so lost control over his emotions that he was not considering that he might actually kill his daughter and that he was only seeking to subdue her.

Which would not have made him less culpable if she had died. I could see manslaughter charges instead of attempted murder. But yes, I would have charged with murder.

I think a lot of juries are loathe to criminalize parental behavior if they think that harm was not intended. Do I think this was appropriate parental behavior? Of course not. Should the daughter be returned to parental custody? Absolutely not and indeed should be in protective care.
 
Toni said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Bomb#20 said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Bomb#20 said:
Unlikely it had anything to do with the jury's politics. They were no doubt instructed that to convict of attempted murder it had to be beyond reasonable doubt that the guy intended to kill his daughter, as opposed to merely injure her, torture her, get control over her, and pack her off to a forced marriage to a man who would probably rape her. ...
Click to expand...
The link is video, I'm not going to watch it. But I agree with your assessment--I don't think there was intent to kill.
Click to expand...
That's not my assessment. I haven't watched any footage of the attack, so my only assessment is that the jurors watched it and the majority probably assessed it correctly. And since we have no way of knowing if the vote was 11-1 for conviction or 11-1 for acquittal or somewhere in between, I have no opinion on whether he meant to kill her.
Click to expand...
Let's do a little thought exercise. How out of your mind do you need to be to put your hands on your teenage daughter's throat, and squeeze hard enough to make her pass out / die? Personally, I can't imagine ever being that angry (and I can have a short fuse). I can't come up with a scenario for it. I imagine you are likewise.

There is no rational reason for his actions other than attempt to kill. I have no idea why the jury would acquit. In the moment of rage and feeling of losing control, this person attempted to resolve a problem with a method of cruel violence. The jury fucked up.
Click to expand...
I don’t entirely agree that his intent must have been to kill her. Her death would have been a predictable outcome but it is possible that he was so enraged and had so lost control over his emotions that he was not considering that he might actually kill his daughter and that he was only seeking to subdue her.

Which would not have made him less culpable if she had died. I could see manslaughter charges instead of attempted murder. But yes, I would have charged with murder.

I think a lot of juries are loathe to criminalize parental behavior if they think that harm was not intended. Do I think this was appropriate parental behavior? Of course not. Should the daughter be returned to parental custody? Absolutely not and indeed should be in protective care.
Click to expand...

Yea, I think that you're right here. I think that he intended to force his daughter to go to Iraq. Then she ran away, rebelled. She stood up for herself, and defied him. Then he saw her, and then absolutely snapped. I do think that he would have killed her if not for the good samaratians and her boyfriend. To me, it should have been attempted 2nd degree murder; perhaps attempted manslaughter. For god sakes, the state should be investigating his competency (and his cookey wife) to raise their remaining daughters, who could also be in great danger.
 
There have been a few honor killings.

Also cutting of the clitoris of young girls to reduce sexual pleasure, in the name of some kind of religious sanctity. Cut off the clit and a woman is less likely to have illicit sex.

Ya gotta love cultural diversity in America..... the diversity crowd ignores any downside. All cultures are equal.

Female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), which includes the partial or total removal of the clitoris, is recognized as a human rights violation and is illegal under federal law in the United States
. The practice is often carried out on young girls, and sometimes adult women, for non-medical reasons.
While FGM/C is illegal in the U.S., it's a deeply rooted cultural practice in certain immigrant communities. Estimates suggest that hundreds of thousands of girls and women in the U.S. have undergone FGM/C or are at risk, with the number potentially exceeding 513,000 as of 2012. This increase is primarily attributed to a rise in immigration from countries where FGM/C is practiced, rather than an increase in the prevalence of the practice within those countries.
Click to expand...

Honor killings in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Several honor killings have been documented in the United States. As of 2012, there is no central agency that collects data across all jurisdictions in regards to honor violence in the United States.[citation needed] There is reluctance among some organizations to label events as honor killings to avoid stigmatizing Muslim and Arab cultures.[1]
Click to expand...

Back in the 70s a Saudi princess was executed for having illicit sex . Her lover was beheaded.

In the United Arab Emirates, the primary method of execution is by firing squad. While the UAE does have a legal system based on Sharia law in some areas, including personal status matters for Muslims, capital punishment is carried out through this specific method. It's worth noting that death sentences must be upheld by the Supreme Court and endorsed by the President of the UAE before execution can occur
Click to expand...

It is similar in areas in Africa. Islamic culture and Sharia law.

In Saudi Arabia minor and forced marries in exchange for a dowries to the parents. Old men and young women.

Mishaal bint Fahd Al Saud - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
From what I have read, I do think the father intended to kill the girl. But I wasn't in the courtroom so I didn't hear what the jury heard. And the jury decision to convict may have been blocked by one hold out.
 
Politesse said:
Murdering people is Woke? They must have left that page out of my Woke Handbook.
Click to expand...
There appears to be the misconception that tolerance of different religions and not stamping people as terrorists as a default means that we tolerate absurd, antiquated uber-conservative practices in religions that restrict the rights of people. Which is fucking stupid and terribly baseless.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Let's do a little thought exercise. How out of your mind do you need to be to put your hands on your teenage daughter's throat, and squeeze hard enough to make her pass out / die? Personally, I can't imagine ever being that angry (and I can have a short fuse). I can't come up with a scenario for it. I imagine you are likewise.

There is no rational reason for his actions other than attempt to kill.
Click to expand...
There is no rational reason for his actions. There is no rational reason for an attempt to kill; and if somehow he had been even vaguely rational while nonetheless intending to kill, he wouldn't have done it in front of dozens of witnesses. We can't analyze this and assume rationality.

I have no idea why the jury would acquit. In the moment of rage and feeling of losing control, this person attempted to resolve a problem with a method of cruel violence.
Click to expand...
That's probably exactly why they acquitted. It's hard to peer inside moments of rage and feelings of cruelty and loss of control to extract an intent. We call on juries to read minds; it's a lot easier to read rational ones than irrational ones; and we tell juries they must be beyond reasonable doubt. And then, after all that, we tell them to be unanimous.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
Politesse said:
Murdering people is Woke? They must have left that page out of my Woke Handbook.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Holding non-westerners to lower standards than westerners is Woke.

There appears to be the misconception that tolerance of different religions and not stamping people as terrorists as a default means that we tolerate absurd, antiquated uber-conservative practices in religions that restrict the rights of people. Which is ... stupid and terribly baseless.
Click to expand...
And another thing that's Woke is misrepresenting the views of Wokism critics. No, there does not appear to be any misconception of the sort. What you are experiencing is not an appearance but a self-congratulatory fantasy. Critics accuse Wokism of tolerating absurd, antiquated uber-conservative practices in religions that restrict the rights of people, not because Wokes tolerate different religions or because they don't stamp people as terrorists as a default, but because of how frequently we've seen Woke people tolerate absurd, antiquated uber-conservative practices in religions that restrict the rights of people.
 
Politesse said:
Bomb#20 said:
Holding non-westerners to lower standards than westerners is Woke.
Click to expand...
I know a lot of Wokes, and none who condone honor killings.
Click to expand...
Know a lot of conservative Christians who condone honor killings, do you? Condoning honor killing would be the issue if Ali had actually killed her; but he didn't. Most probably, some jurors simply thought the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof of intent to kill. The issue in contention is, in the unlikely event that juror ideology entered into it at all, is it less unlikely for a juror to give excessive benefit of the doubt to a violent enraged Muslim because she's an extreme conservative Christian, or because she's an extreme cultural relativist?
 
Bomb#20 said:
Know a lot of conservative Christians who condone honor killings, do you? Condoning honor killing would be the issue if Ali had actually killed her; but he didn't. Most probably, some jurors simply thought the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof of intent to kill.
Click to expand...
Then what does "woke" have to do with it? That is exactly what they are supposed to be considering.

The issue in contention is, in the unlikely event that juror ideology entered into it at all, is it less unlikely for a juror to give excessive benefit of the doubt to a violent enraged Muslim because she's an extreme conservative Christian, or because she's an extreme cultural relativist?
Click to expand...
American juries are usually strongly biased against, not for, Muslims accused of crimes. In theory, a "woke" person might realize that and be a bit more likely to give a fair hearing to a defendant they were otherwise raised to distrust and fear, but it would still be up to the prosecutor to make the case for the charges being levied. A "woke" person would be inclined to give someone a fair trial, in other words, just like any other citizen. But that's is what juries are supposed to do anyway. Anyone who thinks that a person should be denied a fair trial on the basis of their faith or race should not be allowed anywhere near a jury box, be they Christian, educated, or otherwise.
 
AI Overview
"Woke culture" generally refers to an awareness of social and political injustices, particularly those related to systemic inequality and discrimination. It's a term often associated with identity politics and social justice. However, the meaning and application of "woke" have become increasingly contested and politicized.
Click to expand...

For me it is not about woke which is an ill defined term.

It is about the politically correct culture of not criticizing anything relating to culture, except of course American whites.

If I were a public figure in Seattle and pointed out cultural reasons why Chinatown has chronic problems with crime and poverty I would be crucified as racist.

When I was growing up it was melting pot. Immigrants come in and assimilate into American culture and values, and aspects of immigrant culture become p[art of the Amer cam culture.

When there is no pressure to assimilate and drop behaviors counter to our our values then bad behavior persists.

For example female genital mutilation.

The diversity proponents see immigrant cultures as separate and unique. .
 
steve_bank said:
AI Overview
"Woke culture" generally refers to an awareness of social and political injustices, particularly those related to systemic inequality and discrimination. It's a term often associated with identity politics and social justice. However, the meaning and application of "woke" have become increasingly contested and politicized.
Click to expand...

For me it is not about woke which is an ill defined term.

It is about the politically correct culture of not criticizing anything relating to culture, except of course American whites.

If I were a public figure in Seattle and pointed out cultural reasons why Chinatown has chronic problems with crime and poverty I would be crucified as racist.

When I was growing up it was melting pot. Immigrants come in and assimilate into American culture and values, and aspects of immigrant culture become p[art of the Amer cam culture.

When there is no pressure to assimilate and drop behaviors counter to our our values then bad behavior persists.

For example female genital mutilation.

The diversity proponents see immigrant cultures as separate and unique. .
Click to expand...
It's another manufactured outrage by the right. And you fell for it.
 
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Very few purposes to wrapping your hands around someone's throat. If his rage wasn't intending to kill her, he was doing it in a very inefficient way.
Click to expand...
Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.
Click to expand...
Not always.

Felony murder: A death occurring during the commission of a felony can be classified as murder, even without the intent to kill.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, killing someone you're attacking without intending to would be manslaughter, not felony murder. Felony murder is about deaths that are side effects of other crimes.
 
We see this as particularly abhorrent because we are a guilt based culture (internal moral compass). We feel guilt. Iraq's is a shame based culture (external dishonor). I don't know when (or even if) Ihsan and Zahraa Ali immigrated but people of such different cultural backgrounds cannot simply flip a switch.

And for those who cannot get out of their own head, my comment is by no means a justification of the crimes committed.
 
TV and credit cards said:
We see this as particularly abhorrent because we are a guilt based culture (internal moral compass). We feel guilt. Iraq's is a shame based culture (external dishonor). I don't know when (or even if) Ihsan and Zahraa Ali immigrated but people of such different cultural backgrounds cannot simply flip a switch.

And for those who cannot get out of their own head, my comment is by no means a justification of the crimes committed.
Click to expand...
The other angle to observe here is the typical "Muslims taking over" bullshit. Here we have a case of two very conservative stalwart Muslims who, in just one generation, had a daughter who wanted to say "fuck that shit". And the father did nothing, but galvanize her opinion of "fuck that ancient bullshit". If she is allowed to escape, think her daughters will be wearing burkas?
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
TV and credit cards said:
We see this as particularly abhorrent because we are a guilt based culture (internal moral compass). We feel guilt. Iraq's is a shame based culture (external dishonor). I don't know when (or even if) Ihsan and Zahraa Ali immigrated but people of such different cultural backgrounds cannot simply flip a switch.

And for those who cannot get out of their own head, my comment is by no means a justification of the crimes committed.
Click to expand...
The other angle to observe here is the typical "Muslims taking over" bullshit. Here we have a case of two very conservative stalwart Muslims who, in just one generation, had a daughter who wanted to say "fuck that shit". And the father did nothing, but galvanize her opinion of "fuck that ancient bullshit". If she is allowed to escape, think her daughters will be wearing burkas?
Click to expand...
I doubt they would ever know their grandparents.
B - This is so far and away from my thinking as to be nearly incomprehensible.
The preparation for cultural change moving to a western country and our laws needs to be accepted. Mom and dad never got on board and thought they could cut out a little piece of Iraq for themselves. I'll bet they never considered the possibility of such a thing happening. Whether there is a conflict with their faith or just a cultural difference, I do not know but it matters not.
I believe there are siblings. That is concerning.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ZiprHead said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Very few purposes to wrapping your hands around someone's throat. If his rage wasn't intending to kill her, he was doing it in a very inefficient way.
Click to expand...
Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.
Click to expand...
Not always.

Felony murder: A death occurring during the commission of a felony can be classified as murder, even without the intent to kill.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, killing someone you're attacking without intending to would be manslaughter, not felony murder. Felony murder is about deaths that are side effects of other crimes.
Click to expand...
Thanks, Perry Mason. :rolleyes:
 
Harry Bosch said:
Loren Pechtel said:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Very few purposes to wrapping your hands around someone's throat. If his rage wasn't intending to kill her, he was doing it in a very inefficient way.
Click to expand...
Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.
Click to expand...

Clearly intent is the issue. In my mind, he intended to kill her. However, the state was not allowed to bring up the Muslim practice of honor killing. But chocking her until she passed out tells me that he intended to kill her.
Click to expand...
He very well might have. Or he might have simply been acting out of rage, trying to stop resistance. I don't believe it's clear beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom