Attempted honor Killing in Lacey?

[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.

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.

I'm not saying it was defensive in nature, of course it was offensive. But that doesn't mean he would have continued to death. Likely, yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I don't see this as not criminalizing parental behavior. I don't see anyone questioning that he was wrong, only questioning exactly what wrong he committed. Just look at how people in this thread are reacting--considering your first paragraph as plausible. Remember that criminal trials are beyond a reasonable doubt--and paragraph #1 is a reasonable doubt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

While I have doubts on murder I very much agree neither of them should ever have someone in their care.

 

[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.

I'm not saying it was defensive in nature, of course it was offensive. But that doesn't mean he would have continued to death. Likely, yes. Beyond a reasonable doubt, no.

Your reasonable doubt would have caused me a stroke on the jury.

“She’s unconscious, and he continues to strangle her around the neck for another 15-18 seconds and would have continued to do so even longer but for the intervention of those adults,” Stone said.

How in the heck can you read that as anything but attempting to kill her?

The term is "reasonable doubt" not free of any potential hypothetical doubt you can manufacture. He intended to end her life. The reason, she disobeyed him. There is no reasonable doubt.

 

[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.

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.

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.

What exactly is it that makes you think that? What is reasonable about your doubt?

Clearly if he had not been stopped by outside forces the girl would be dead.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don't see this as not criminalizing parental behavior. I don't see anyone questioning that he was wrong, only questioning exactly what wrong he committed. Just look at how people in this thread are reacting--considering your first paragraph as plausible. Remember that criminal trials are beyond a reasonable doubt--and paragraph #1 is a reasonable doubt.

Oh, I do not disagree. But for a lot of people, it’s a slippery slope: is all corporal punishment actually assault? Where is the line drawn?

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

I don't see this as not criminalizing parental behavior. I don't see anyone questioning that he was wrong, only questioning exactly what wrong he committed. Just look at how people in this thread are reacting--considering your first paragraph as plausible. Remember that criminal trials are beyond a reasonable doubt--and paragraph #1 is a reasonable doubt.

Oh, I do not disagree. But for a lot of people, it’s a slippery slope: is all corporal punishment actually assault? Where is the line drawn?

From watching police videos, bruising seems to be a compelling point to cops.

 

[Toni]

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.

I don't see this as not criminalizing parental behavior. I don't see anyone questioning that he was wrong, only questioning exactly what wrong he committed. Just look at how people in this thread are reacting--considering your first paragraph as plausible. Remember that criminal trials are beyond a reasonable doubt--and paragraph #1 is a reasonable doubt.

Oh, I do not disagree. But for a lot of people, it’s a slippery slope: is all corporal punishment actually assault? Where is the line drawn?

From watching police videos, bruising seems to be a compelling point to cops.

Yes. That is evidence of force, of harm.