Attempted honor Killing in Lacey?

[Harry Bosch]

I live in near Lacey Washington and have been following the below case for some time:

MSN

Quite unbelievable that the Father avoided attempted murder. Some background: Islamic girl becomes westernized, falls in love with American boy. Mom and Dad decide that she would be better off in a forced arranged marriage to a much older man in Iraq. They book the tickets. On the day the flight was to take off to Iraq, daughter escapes, runs to school. School administrators and her boyfriend do everything they can to hide her, protect her. She's 17 at this time. Daughter and boyfriend leave to meet with foster care people to get advice; Mom and Dad find them. Dad brutally attacks the couple. Punches the son, knocks him to the ground. Dad is a big guy. Then he just punches the daughter, knocks her to the ground. Strangles her. A crown tries to get him off her. Her eyes roll behind back, and she passes out. Finally a good samaritan knocks the dad off the daughter. The entire time mom is trying to get at the daughter; other people are trying to stop her. They entire attack is caught on video (see link). Dad gets off. Looks like he'll get time served. Same as mom. Mom is already out. Mom is interviewed (also above). Mom has absolutely no remorse. She just wants her daughter to come home for dinner! Dad blames the entire incident on "Islamophobia". As a father of three, the way the father goes after his own daughter is quite disturbing.

 

[Derec]

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

 

[Tigers!]

We have had a very few of these in Aust. The Brits have a larger problem as does Europe.

The parents or which of them is was should be charged as appropriate intead of the mealy mouthed excuses.
Perhaps deport then back to their country of origin? They are not needed where they are currently are.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the with

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

Something strange happened when I was typing my reply (with my text disappearing, and this double quoting being the result, as I try to reply a second time).
This has nothing to do with "wokeness" (nor as relevantly "Loch Ness"). This is about an antequated religious derived attitude of some people of certain cultures, that is frowned on even in the origin country nowadays. It is like the witch killing of past European and American cultures (still found in some African places). The fault with the jury decision could be because they are conservatives. Definitely not because they were woke.

 

[Bomb#20]

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

Something strange happened when I was typing my reply (with my text disappearing, and this double quoting being the result, as I try to reply a second time).
This has nothing to do with "wokeness" (nor as relevantly "Loch Ness"). This is about an antequated religious derived attitude of some people of certain cultures, that is frowned on even in the origin country nowadays. It is like the witch killing of past European and American cultures (still found in some African places). The fault with the jury decision could be because they are conservatives. Definitely not because they were woke.

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. If they thought the latter was a realistic possibility then they'd have to acquit -- that's what innocent until proven guilty means. They convicted him of assault because that's what they had proof of. Trying to force someone into an offshore forced marriage really ought to be its own federal crime, but the parents could probably be prosecuted for human trafficking.

The silver lining to the weak-ass conviction is the sooner the guy finishes his sentence the sooner he can walk out of prison and find ICE waiting for him.

 

[ZiprHead]

In addition to what B20 said, I bet there's a small segment of Christians that secretly still approve of honor killing. If one was on the jury you will not get a conviction.

So fuck that woke blaming bullshit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What an awful course of events. Is there nothing between assault and attempted murder?

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

What the fuck are you talking about? Wokeness supports the girl. Wokeness supports trashing antiquated customs that will suffocate this girl's life! Wokeness says we need to allow younger people the option to choose their own life.

Hyper conservativism supports the father.

 

[bilby]

What an awful course of events. Is there nothing between assault and attempted murder?

Depends on the jurisdiction.

Often, there is a hierarchy based on severity of injury:

"Assault" being the least serious, and can just be credible threats of imminent harm;
"Assault and battery" in which the victim was touched but not necessarily injured;
"Assault occasioning Actual Bodily Harm" in which non-life threatening injuries were inflicted; and
"Assault occasioning Grevious Bodily Harm" in which the injuries would have been fatal, without prompt medical treatment

The only difference between GBH and Attempted Murder (at least in my jurisdiction) is one of intent - I was a juror on a GBH case a few years ago, and that was explained to us in detail.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

 

[Elixir]

What the fuck are you talking about? Wokeness supports the girl.

Derec “logic” dictates that woke is despicable, so people who commit despicable acts are automatically “woke”.
Same equivocation used by his mentor Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

Something strange happened when I was typing my reply (with my text disappearing, and this double quoting being the result, as I try to reply a second time).
This has nothing to do with "wokeness" (nor as relevantly "Loch Ness"). This is about an antequated religious derived attitude of some people of certain cultures, that is frowned on even in the origin country nowadays. It is like the witch killing of past European and American cultures (still found in some African places). The fault with the jury decision could be because they are conservatives. Definitely not because they were woke.

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. If they thought the latter was a realistic possibility then they'd have to acquit -- that's what innocent until proven guilty means. They convicted him of assault because that's what they had proof of. Trying to force someone into an offshore forced marriage really ought to be its own federal crime, but the parents could probably be prosecuted for human trafficking.

The silver lining to the weak-ass conviction is the sooner the guy finishes his sentence the sooner he can walk out of prison and find ICE waiting for him.

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.

And the real answer here is that attempted forced marriage should have a very heavy penalty. Below murder (don't make killing have the lower penalty) but not too far below. However, how about attempted kidnapping? Realistically, it has to be either attempted murder or attempted kidnapping. What would his defense be, that he was trying to kill her, not abduct her?? In terms of measuring wrongdoing I think the prosecution should be able to offer a set of options (in this case murder or kidnapping), the jury can convict on the set without resolving which item in the set it is. Punishment would of course be based on the lowest item in the set.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.

 

[Bomb#20]

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. ...

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.

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. My point was that some of the jurors being unconvinced he meant to kill is a ton more likely than some of the jurors thinking it's okay for a father to kill a disobedient daughter. Even if he'd killed her the same issue would have come up, re murder vs. manslaughter. It's a lot easier to get a murder conviction when there's a weapon.

And the real answer here is that attempted forced marriage should have a very heavy penalty. Below murder (don't make killing have the lower penalty) but not too far below. However, how about attempted kidnapping? Realistically, it has to be either attempted murder or attempted kidnapping. What would his defense be, that he was trying to kill her, not abduct her?? In terms of measuring wrongdoing I think the prosecution should be able to offer a set of options (in this case murder or kidnapping), the jury can convict on the set without resolving which item in the set it is. Punishment would of course be based on the lowest item in the set.

Tough to convict a parent of kidnapping his own minor child, when there's no custody dispute.

 

[ZiprHead]

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?

 

[Bomb#20]

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?

Sentencing is set for Aug. 18.

In addition to what B20 said, I bet there's a small segment of Christians that secretly still approve of honor killing. If one was on the jury you will not get a conviction.

So <expletive deleted> that woke blaming <expletive deleted>.

Any loony extremist Christian worth his salt would see a Muslim girl westernizing and making friends with an American boy as a step toward converting to Christianity.

What an awful course of events. Is there nothing between assault and attempted murder?

That jury was idiotic, and elevated wokeness over the facts and the law. Truly pathetic!

What the <expletive deleted> are you talking about? Wokeness supports the girl. Wokeness supports trashing antiquated customs that will suffocate this girl's life! Wokeness says we need to allow younger people the option to choose their own life.

You say that as though wokeness has principles. Wokeness has a stack. And there are thousands of girls in the UK who can testify that Muslims are higher on the stack than girls -- 1400 of them in Rotherham alone.

Hyper conservativism supports the father.

Hyper Muslim conservatism, maybe. If the acquittal was because one of the jurors was an ideologically motivated holdout, statistically, there aren't as many conservative Christians who approve of honor killing by Muslims as there are relativists who think no culture is better than any other and therefore westerners have no right to impose western values on people from other cultures. Ali claims the reason he's being prosecuted is Islamophobia. The reason people in his position make that claim is because western societies contain enough useful idiots to make it a sometimes helpful tactic.

 

[ZiprHead]

Any loony extremist Christian worth his salt would see a Muslim girl westernizing and making friends with an American boy as a step toward converting to Christianity.

The Bible says unruly children should be killed.

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.

Not always.

Felony murder: A death occurring during the commission of a felony can be classified as murder, even without the intent to kill.

 

[Harry Bosch]

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.

Subdue. Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Subdue.

FFS. Choking a person is a rage action, especially on a woman. A chokehold from behind is used to subdue a person that is of physical risk. The girl was not a risk to this man's or any person's health. He was rageful and wanted to judge his daughter's defiance of his commands with the bloody vengeance of his faith.

Dangerous, but not automatically deadly. He certainly could have killed her but that doesn't mean he intended to. And murder requires intent.

He intended to kill her. One doesn't walk back strangling a spouse or child. He could have argued temporary insanity, but I don't buy for a second his actions were anything but intent to kill.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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. ...

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.

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.

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.