Bitch who got away with arson and murdering her husband finally dies ...

[Derec]

But you don't have evidence of this claim. She was not found 'innocent by virtue of vagina.'

Do you know of any cases where a man was found not guilty while

It is always women who get away with murder in these cases where actual guilt is beyond any doubt. Mary Winkler, Nikki Redmond, that woman in NY who murdered her husband while he was shaving and was only found guilty on a gun possession charge.

You have to ignore the actual facts of the case to insert your own.

I did not ignore or add any facts. She murdered her husband in a particularly cruel fashion. She got away with it.

And that's why everyone points at you and laughs.

Because being against female murderers is now laughable? Violence against women is the worst thing ever, but violence against men is ok?

- - - Updated - - -

The judicial system isn't about punishing people, even if that is what happens sometimes.

What is it about? Letting women get away with murder?

Your objections to this woman might be political, but this thread and the words you wrote speak nothing of policy and only of your own hatred for someone you feel 'cheated the system.'

To say that women have the right to murder their husbands if they claim they were abused is very much political, no matter how you spin it.

 

[laughing dog]

If she was genuinely insane, she should have been sent to a loony bin. If she was not insane, she should have been found guilty of arson and first degree murder.
The finding of "temporary insanity" was just a fig leaf to excuse the unjustified not guilty verdict.

You literally have no idea what you ranting about. You have no idea what it is like to be that situation. Even the prosecution was sympathetic to her situation.

Regardless, I know the facts of the case.

Clearly you do not know the facts of the case. The facts include her husband brutalized her to the point of her temporary insanity.

She murdered this man while he was sleeping in a particularly cruel manner by setting him on fire. She should have been held responsible for what she did.
Just because she is a female should not give her extra opportunities to dodge a rightful guilty verdict and long prison sentence or death penalty.

You have no proof that her verdict was based on her gender.

How is this a straw man? She murdered a man. She committed arson. She got away with it in a way that no man could. If that isn't sexism, then what would be?

You have no evidence that a man in the same situation would be found guilty, None.

Oh wait, here's a crazy man who not only killed his wife, burned down his house and then killed 3 more people, but he was found not guilty by reason of insanity http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-frederick.htm. True, he was sent to a mental institution, but he did not fear for his life and he killed 4 people.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Do you know of any cases where a man was found not guilty while

Arguments of incredulity are NOT positive evidence of your theory, Derec.
You are, once again, delivering a sermon that 'women get treated differently and it's bad.'

But that's all it is, a sermon.

You have to ignore the actual facts of the case to insert your own.

I did not ignore or add any facts.

Yes, you did. You SAY you're familiar with the facts of the case, but you dismiss/ignore/misstate the actual trial's conclusion to insert and insist upon your own interpretation.

And that's why everyone points at you and laughs.

Because being against female murderers is now laughable?

No, Derec. Pretending that your motivation is a rational evaluation of the events is laughable.

It's the same thing, every time. You rant and rail and accuse, and offer nothing to support your interpretation except the race or gender of the villain in your story.

 

[Derec]

But for your OP to be true, then Feminism would not have been just something that people were trying, it would have to have dominated society enough to hold sway on the jury. That doesn't sound like 1977 to me.

Depends on the jurors. Btw, 10 out of 12 were women.

But by 1977 it had stopped being ratified by any more states.

Because all the states that were agreeable to it ratified it already. Michigan, where this murder most vile happened, ratified it all the way back in 1972. So, I do not think it is unrealistic that the jury was swayed by feminist ideology. And even if they weren't, feminists of the day quickly embraced this murderer as a heroine of the movement, just like they later did with Bobbit.

with wild stories about how it was going to lead to unisex bathrooms and all-women firehouses and men were going to have to stay home and change diapers.... And people were BUYING this bullshit.

Not exactly bullshit, given that some European countries have passed laws mandating men have to do half the housework etc.

Yes, well, maybe. But the problem is, this is just another case of Derec being pissed because he feels some woman 'got away with' something, despite his lack of familiarity with the details and unwillingness to acquaint himself.

I did acquaint myself with the facts. She murdered her husband in a most vile fashion. Then she got away with it.
She did not have to resort to murder. It wasn't anywhere in neighborhood of self defense. It was not justified by any conceivable definition of justifiable.

You misunderstand the source of my guffaw. You defended Zimmerman's murder of a defenseless teen, so you really look like a fool complaining about any other 'defenseless' victim.

Trayvon wasn't a defenseless teen. He hit Z and was on top of him when Z shot him.
Very different than somebody being set on fire while sleeping.

- - - Updated - - -

You are, once again, delivering a sermon that 'women get treated differently and it's bad.'

Well they are and it is.

Yes, you did. You SAY you're familiar with the facts of the case, but you dismiss/ignore/misstate the actual trial's conclusion to insert and insist upon your own interpretation.

What exact "facts" am I ignoring?

It's the same thing, every time. You rant and rail and accuse, and offer nothing to support your interpretation except the race or gender of the villain in your story.

Do you know of any men who git away with burning their wives to death?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Depends on the jurors. Btw, 10 out of 12 were women.

Are you too young to remember Phyllis McAlpin Schlafly? Having a vagina != feminist.

But by 1977 it had stopped being ratified by any more states.

Because all the states that were agreeable to it ratified it already. Michigan, where this murder most vile happened, ratified it all the way back in 1972. So, I do not think it is unrealistic that the jury was swayed by feminist ideology. And even if they weren't, feminists of the day quickly embraced this murderer as a heroine of the movement, just like they later did with Bobbit.

Now, now, now. You're shifting, there. You went from a definite statement that she was allowed to commit murder because of feminism, to 'swayed by' feminism.
But you're still just projecting, you have no actual evidence of this.

Not exactly bullshit, given that some European countries have passed laws mandating men have to do half the housework etc.

No, it is EXACTLY bullshit, because none of that language was in the ERA.

I did acquaint myself with the facts.

No, you didn't. Your description of the trial is at odds with what actually happened, what was decided, and your projections are not facts.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you know of any men who git away with burning their wives to death?

Dude, you still haven't shown that she 'got away with' burning her husband to death. That was not what the jury said. No one said 'you have a vagina, so what you did was okay, get out of the courtroom and go free.'

That's part of the 'facts' you're ignoring or making up.

 

[Derec]

You literally have no idea what you ranting about. You have no idea what it is like to be that situation. Even the prosecution was sympathetic to her situation.

I know that she murdered somebody in a very cruel and painful way. I don't care that the prosecution was "sympathetic" to her and possibly threw the case. She chose to commit murder and should have faced the consequences.

Clearly you do not know the facts of the case. The facts include her husband brutalized her

I am not ignoring this. I am saying that it does not justify murder.

to the point of her temporary insanity.

"Temporary insanity". How convenient! Let's you commit murder without any consequences, not even being committed to a loony bin.

You have no proof that her verdict was based on her gender.

Would a man be allowed to get away with setting his wife on fire? Be real for once in your life!

You have no evidence that a man in the same situation would be found guilty, None.

Except that no men have ever been.

Oh wait, here's a crazy man who not only killed his wife, burned down his house and then killed 3 more people, but he was found not guilty by reason of insanity http://murderpedia.org/male.W/w/williams-frederick.htm. True, he was sent to a mental institution, but he did not fear for his life and he killed 4 people.

I.e. actual insanity. He was sent to the loony bin and is probably still there.
Not this pretend "temporary insanity" that lasts exactly the time it takes to commit murder and which allows women to commit murder and go about their way as if they did nothing.
A very different thing LD, and you know it.

 

[Ford]

I hope she suffered before dying at least as much as her husband did while she deliberately, and with malice aforethought, burned him to death.
Francine Hughes Wilson, abused Michigan wife who inspired 'The Burning Bed,' dies at 69
"Abuse" is not a justification for arson and murder and women and men should face equal penalties for equal crimes. A man who committed arson and premeditated murder would have gotten life without parole at the very least. Yet this woman was acquitted even though she confessed. Because feminism.

Something to understand about these cases:

Their abusers have them convinced that if they leave there will be no escaping the abuser and their vengeance. It's useful for controlling their victims--but it means that if they reach their breaking point the only safety they can see is killing their abuser. (And in many cases it really is the only safety they have--they don't have the skills to disappear well enough.)

This is an important point. Abuse is far more than just physical. My ex wife - who was savagely abused by the "man" she had a relationship with before we met - spent the first year after she extricated herself from that situation constantly looking over her shoulder...worried that he'd come back and kill her just like he'd threatened on many occasions. What he did was erect a mental and emotional prison for her, backed up by not just threats of violence, but actual violence.

She told me of this one time when (and forgive me for over sharing) he knocked her unconscious after she'd stood up to him. After he'd raped her. Again. She said she came to and found herself with a gun pointed at her temple, and him telling her that if she ever stood up to him again (or tried to leave) he'd kill her, her daughter, and dump their bodies in the desert where nobody would ever find them.

According to Derec, if she'd killed him in an attempt to escape she'd be a "bitch" who deserved to suffer. That's how fucked up his thinking is. No amount of abuse is ever enough to justify a woman fighting back against a man.

 

[laughing dog]

I know that she murdered somebody in a very cruel and painful way. I don't care that the prosecution was "sympathetic" to her and possibly threw the case. She chose to commit murder and should have faced the consequences.

When the prosecution is sympathetic, that is usually an indication that the situation is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

I am not ignoring this. I am saying that it does not justify murder.

Of course you are ignoring it. Otherwise the viterupation and misogyny would not be flowing throughout this thread.

"Temporary insanity". How convenient! Let's you commit murder without any consequences, not even being committed to a loony bin.

Yeah, it is so convenient that no one is every convicted of murder.

Would a man be allowed to get away with setting his wife on fire? Be real for once in your life!

Your conjectures are not evidence of reality. You are literally posting out of your ass.

Except that no men have ever been.

If no man has ever been convicted in the same situation, then why are you claiming she got off because of her gender?

I.e. actual insanity. He was sent to the loony bin and is probably still there.

How convenient. Get to kill 4 people, burn down a house and then get free room and board for the rest of your life. And you are defending it? Oh yes, the multiple murderer is a man.

Not this pretend "temporary insanity" that allows women to commit murder and go about their way as if they did nothing.

You have no evidence that her temporary insanity was pretend. None.

A very different thing LD, and you know it.

You are not fooling anyone but yourself with this hate-filled ranting.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why not? Didn't second wave feminism start around 1968 or so? Even Andrea Dworkin already wrote two books by 1977.

Wasn't the ERA dying a lingering death in 1977?

Note that ERA gained two thirds in both House and Senate and was ratified by 35 states. Yes, it failed but just barely.

You've had this boogeyman under your bed for 40 years?

No, I wasn't even born in 1977. But women getting away with murder is a big issue, and thus worthy of having a thread on it.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you "stand your ground" against a defenseless, sleeping person?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one!

Do you really think arson and murdering a sleeping person qualifies under "stand your ground"? Or just when the perpetrator has a vagina?

Why do you hate women, other than that they have freedom to reject you unless they are dependent on your money?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Ok, reading Derec and the replies to him, and his claim of a gender bias, and the claims against him of misogyny, I start to wonder....

Would you buy this "temporary insanity" excuse for a geeky kid who is abused and picked on to the point that he snaps and slaughters his classmates in a school shooting?

How about a guy who gets constant verbal abuse because he is ugly or awkward or whatever and can only have paid sex, and then he rapes somebody?

Could temporary insanity ever apply in that case? How many psychologists would you need to tell you the rape is excusable because he was temporarily insane? Or would you call bullshit?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, reading Derec and the replies to him, and his claim of a gender bias, and the claims against him of misogyny, I start to wonder....

Would you buy this "temporary insanity" excuse for a geeky kid who is abused and picked on to the point that he snaps and slaughters his classmates in a school shooting?

How about a guy who gets constant verbal abuse because he is ugly or awkward or whatever and can only have paid sex, and then he rapes somebody?

Could temporary insanity ever apply in that case? How many psychologists would you need to tell you the rape is excusable because he was temporarily insane? Or would you call bullshit?

Are you asking us to 'buy' this defense as distant bystanders who are not acquainted with all the details of these cases, or as jurors who sit through the full testimony of experts working for both sides, making claims and offering up supporting evidence? I'd be leery about predicting how i'd vote on the guilt of someone before sitting through the actual trial and seeing the actual evidence.

At least part of the problem people are having with Derec's judgments is that he's not shown that he's privy to all the facts and testimony in the case, but he's damn certain he knows why they made the decision he claims they did. He hasn't offered any experts' testimony that she was not temporarily insane, or that temporary insanity is total bullshit. He has, however, come to the exact same conclusion he always does when a trial does not punish a woman in the manner he feels she should be punished.

 

[laughing dog]

Ok, reading Derec and the replies to him, and his claim of a gender bias, and the claims against him of misogyny, I start to wonder....

Would you buy this "temporary insanity" excuse for a geeky kid who is abused and picked on to the point that he snaps and slaughters his classmates in a school shooting?

How about a guy who gets constant verbal abuse because he is ugly or awkward or whatever and can only have paid sex, and then he rapes somebody?

Could temporary insanity ever apply in that case? How many psychologists would you need to tell you the rape is excusable because he was temporarily insane? Or would you call bullshit?

Seems to me that it is reasonable conclusion that someone is a misogynist who routinely
1) refers to women in derogatory terms,
2) chooses the most demeaning explanations for the behavior of wemen,
3) denies their versions as lies, and
4) makes outlandish claims of bias without an iota of evidence,.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Derec claims he calls people innocent when they've gotten off from a crime and only "suspects" before they're convicted. However evidence shows if it's a woman and she gets a not guilty verdict, Derec calls her a "bitch" and if it's a black man, Derec calls guilty instead of a suspect. There's a whole racial and gender set of rules for the way he refers to such persons, such that we could probably make a fairly genuine looking Derecbot that post things to the forum instead of him.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I hope she suffered before dying at least as much as her husband did while she deliberately, and with malice aforethought, burned him to death.
Francine Hughes Wilson, abused Michigan wife who inspired 'The Burning Bed,' dies at 69
"Abuse" is not a justification for arson and murder and women and men should face equal penalties for equal crimes. A man who committed arson and premeditated murder would have gotten life without parole at the very least. Yet this woman was acquitted even though she confessed. Because feminism.

In the UK this can be accepted as self-defence where the person concerned was acquitted on appeal.


http://en.wikimannia.org/Kiranjit_Ahluwalia

The Indian woman Kiranjit Ahluwalia (* 1955) demonstrates that even a convicted murderer is good as a human rights activist. She had in 1989 after years of domestic violence overwhelmed and burned her husband with napalm during he was asleep.
Initially sentenced to life imprisonment for murder, the sentence was later revised and replaced with manslaughter. Her case sparked an unprecedented propaganda campaign by women's organizations from all over the world, thus reaching to change the definition of the word "provocation"[wp] in cases of abused women.
Ahluwalia was the first winner in 2001 with the Asian Women Awards honored in recognition of her "strength, personal power, determination and commitment"[1] for their support on the topic of domestic violence.
Contents
1 Life

http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/R-v-Ahluwalia.php

R v Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App R 133 Court of Appeal

The appellant poured petrol and caustic soda on to her sleeping husband and then set fire to him. He died six days later from his injuries. The couple had an arranged marriage and the husband had been violent and abusive throughout the marriage. He was also having an affair. On the night of the killing he had threatened to hit her with an iron and told her that he would beat her the next day if she did not provide him with money. At her trial she admitted killing her husband but raised the defence of provocation however, the jury convicted her of murder. She appealed on the grounds that the judge's direction to the jury relating to provocation was wrong and she also raised the defence of diminished responsibility.

Held:

The judge's direction on provocation was correct. The Duffy direction was good law and the judge had directed the jury on the issue of the abuse suffered by the appellant and thus the jury would have considered the affect of this in reaching their verdict. The appeal on the grounds of provocation was therefore unsuccessful.

However, the appeal was allowed on the grounds of diminished responsibility. The Court did, however, stress that it was exceptional that fresh evidence would be allowed.

ord Taylor CJ:

"Ordinarily, of course, any available defences should be advanced at trial. Accordingly, if medical evidence is available to support a plea of diminished responsibility, it should be adduced at the trial. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that this court would require much persuasion to allow such a defence to be raised for the first time here if the option had been exercised at the trial not to pursue it. Otherwise, as must be clear, defendants might be encouraged to run one defence at trial in the belief that if it fails, this court would allow a different defence to be raised and give the defendant, in effect, two opportunities to run different defences. Nothing could be further from the truth. Likewise, if there is no evidence to support diminished responsibility at the time of the trial, this court would view any wholly retrospective medical evidence obtained long after the trial with considerable sceptism.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Could temporary insanity ever apply in that case? How many psychologists would you need to tell you the rape is excusable because he was temporarily insane? Or would you call bullshit?

Are you asking us to 'buy' this defense as distant bystanders who are not acquainted with all the details of these cases, or as jurors who sit through the full testimony of experts working for both sides, making claims and offering up supporting evidence? I'd be leery about predicting how i'd vote on the guilt of someone before sitting through the actual trial and seeing the actual evidence.

I am asking in any case.

Derec seems to be taking the position that it doesn't matter what the particular nitty gritty facts are in regards to this woman because "temporary insanity" would never be a valid excuse given what she did to her victim. He is also arguing for a gender bias.

So I ask the rest of you if you would take a position similar to his in regard to a school shooting spree or a rape. Could there ever be a valid "temporary insanity" defence or is it just not applicable regardless of how many psychologists give testimony?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Derec seems to be taking the position that it doesn't matter what the particular nitty gritty facts are in regards to this woman because "temporary insanity" would never be a valid excuse given what she did to her victim. He is also arguing for a gender bias.

Well, he's not really 'arguing,' he's simply asserting both as a fact without any support. As usual.

So I ask the rest of you if you would take a position similar to his in regard to a school shooting spree or a rape. Could there ever be a valid "temporary insanity" defence or is it just not applicable regardless of how many psychologists give testimony?

Won't really know unless and until the trial.
Derec only needs to know the crime and the genders involved to know that 'temporary insanity' is a bullshit defense, but I don't have any claim to expertise in the mental health or legal professions to leap to such a conclusion, especially only on skeletons of hypothetical court cases.

 

[laughing dog]

Are you asking us to 'buy' this defense as distant bystanders who are not acquainted with all the details of these cases, or as jurors who sit through the full testimony of experts working for both sides, making claims and offering up supporting evidence? I'd be leery about predicting how i'd vote on the guilt of someone before sitting through the actual trial and seeing the actual evidence.

I am asking in any case.

Derec seems to be taking the position that it doesn't matter what the particular nitty gritty facts are in regards to this woman because "temporary insanity" would never be a valid excuse given what she did to her victim. He is also arguing for a gender bias.

There is no "seems" about it.

[
So I ask the rest of you if you would take a position similar to his in regard to a school shooting spree or a rape. Could there ever be a valid "temporary insanity" defence or is it just not applicable regardless of how many psychologists give testimony?

In my view, it is possible that temporary insanity is a valid plea.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Won't really know unless and until the trial.

So you are saying that there COULD be such a case with a rape or a school shooting where you would let the person off due to a "temporary insanity" defence? You just need to see the fine details before knowing on any particular one?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Won't really know unless and until the trial.

So you are saying that there COULD be such a case with a rape or a school shooting where you would let the person off due to a "temporary insanity" defence? You just need to see the fine details before knowing on any particular one?

I don't know.

 

[RavenSky]

I hope she suffered before dying at least as much as her husband did...

Oh don't worry Derec. She did.

She suffered 14 years of near daily vicious beatings and rapes and life-threats against her and her children and all sorts of other abuses. Aren't you glad?