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

[whichphilosophy]

I blame Obama and Elizabeth Warren!

Blame Trump, he's in charge now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

According to Wikipedia ( Francine_Hughes) -

For me that is the deal breaker. If the cops will not deal with a problem like abuse then whatever happens to an abuser after that is his bad. You're basically telling her he is free to shit all over her and no one will do anything to stop it.

Like the "girlfriend" of the man I mentioned above he found some loophole where he was going to keep doing whatever he wanted because no one would do anything. The "girlfriend" knew if she called the cops my employee would go to jail just for the accusation, at least for a few hours. Even if it didn't hold up in court getting arrested could still cost him his job, money on a lawyer, ect. The man burned to death by his wife was basically told how he could keep abusing his wife and nothing was going to be done about it.

The sad thing about this is that the employee's father is a police chief and he says the chief's wife does the same thing to his dad. If this is true and a police chief is grabbed by the balls then what about the rest of us?

Yup, the law says if the threat isn't imminent you go to the cops but if it's proven the cops won't help??? I don't think I could vote to convict in such a situation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

According to Wikipedia ( Francine_Hughes) -

On the day of the fire, March 9, 1977, Francine returned from her secretarial course in the afternoon and found Mickey intoxicated and irate.[8] He refused to allow her to make food for their four children, and berated her for some time about quitting school, which she refused to agree to, even after Mickey forced her to burn her schoolbooks.[9] He began to physically assault her. The police attended and spoke to the pair, but left after refusing to arrest Mickey as he had not assaulted her in front of them.[10]

I saw the film. While in normal circumstances she would have committed murder, to her this was the only way of self defence. While I don't think a plea of temporary insanity is necessary this makes the defence simpler. In such a circumstance, this was to her, her only option which a court should accept.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Here's an example of the flip side. This is about a family where the woman called the police, the police were very unhelpful, and then the woman did NOT try to kill the husband/fiance/boyfriend:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ing-911-killed-hours-later-with-son/22023354/

 

[RavenSky]

Here's an example of the flip side. This is about a family where the woman called the police, the police were very unhelpful, and then the woman did NOT try to kill the husband/fiance/boyfriend:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ing-911-killed-hours-later-with-son/22023354/

From the comments section:

Most people would have just given him the keys or not had a relationship with him in the first place. The media loves to sensationalize poor decision making.

^^^ victim-blaming

 

[Playball40]

Well you know what Derek? Had that wife beating, woman hating, prick of a husband of hers been behind BARS THE FIRST TIME HE BEAT HER TO A BLOODY PULP, she wouldn't have had to kill him to save her and her children's lives. So, it seem that your unfair and misogynist patriarch society is really what did this dude in. Blame them.

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.

And this is where LordKiran's observations ring true. You were not there. You did not witness anything. You did not attend the trial. You did not hear the testimony. I doubt you would pass a"voir dire" by any defense lawyer where a woman was on trial for anything.

Regardless, I know the facts of the case. 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 can pretend your views about "equality" but your persistent vile rhetoric and unrelenting disgusting straw men about women tell otherwise.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

WTF? Derec, what the fuck did a female dog do to you for them to deserve to be compared to this woman??!?!1! I will have you know that bitches are noble creatures and care for both their pups and their humans with loving care.

You are absolutely right! I repent!

 

[Playball40]

My Safari will not open Derec's link. MY question is did the woman ever approach the police for help and maybe her husband was able to lie his way out of getting into trouble?

My father, bless his soul, was a school teacher for many years. One year back in the early 80's he disciplined some kids who held a grudge over it. During the summer for several weeks every other night these students and some friends would come by early in the morning and vandalize our vehicles and throw toilet paper in the trees. It wasn't just throwing paper and putting shoe polish on cars either, it was writing vulgarities and painting obscene pictures on our house. Dad did everything he could, he went to the police who basically told him it was just kids being kids, it would stop after a few more days (we later learned one of the kids was the nephew of the policeman we went to for help). The next door neighbors on each side of the house stayed up one or two nights to watch the house so dad and mom could get some sleep. I even stayed up a few nights with the family dog with the garage door open watching. One night they came and dad got a good look at them because we have a street light and lamp post of our own in front of the house. That is how we knew who they were but the cop just wanted to argue and say we couldn't prove it. After dad gets an id on them they show up two more times and dad catches them again on the second. This time he is totally fed up. He runs out out the house with a baseball bat and screaming curses plops that baseball bat right into the top of that car's engine hood with all his strength making a huge dent. He gets right up to the glass window and tells them to f-off cause next time the bat was going through the window and whatever happened just has to happen. Never had any more problems after that.

My dad was the kindest humblest man you'd ever met. When he had to paddle a student he would come home and sulk for a while he had to do it. He never liked getting on to me and my sister either. But he was pushed to his limit and no one would help in any meaningful way. The police basically told him "We aren't going to come help you, but don't you dare do anything to them". I was a little kid about 7 or 8 years old and I vividly remember the cop saying they didn't have the man power to help dad but if he did anything to them they would jump his butt all over. What the hell was he supposed to do?

Eventually the insurance would have gotten tired of having to do paint work on the car and truck he and mom had. And sand blasting wasn't very cheap for the side walks and house. When is enough enough?

No one has ever "had" to paddle a student.

 

[J842P]

No one has ever "had" to paddle a student.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXQR-cPXlmY[/YOUTUBE]

 

[LordKiran]

Well you know what Derek? Had that wife beating, woman hating, prick of a husband of hers been behind BARS THE FIRST TIME HE BEAT HER TO A BLOODY PULP, she wouldn't have had to kill him to save her and her children's lives. So, it seem that your unfair and misogynist patriarch society is really what did this dude in. Blame them.

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.


Regardless, I know the facts of the case. 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 can pretend your views about "equality" but your persistent vile rhetoric and unrelenting disgusting straw men about women tell otherwise.

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?

- - - Updated - - -

WTF? Derec, what the fuck did a female dog do to you for them to deserve to be compared to this woman??!?!1! I will have you know that bitches are noble creatures and care for both their pups and their humans with loving care.

You are absolutely right! I repent!

But in Derec's mind, cops can do no wrong; even when they're negligent to the point where people die.

 

[Derec]

Here's an example of the flip side. This is about a family where the woman called the police, the police were very unhelpful, and then the woman did NOT try to kill the husband/fiance/boyfriend:
https://www.aol.com/article/news/20...ing-911-killed-hours-later-with-son/22023354/

It would only be the flip side if the man got away with the murder by claiming conveniently timed temporary insanity.

Don, do you think police should arrest any man when a woman makes a claim? Or should they still be bound by such things as evidence and probable cause?
Police can't arrest people based on what they possibly might do in the future. And likewise, women should not be free to commit brutal murder because of what a man might possibly do in the future.

 

[Derec]

But in Derec's mind, cops can do no wrong; even when they're negligent to the point where people die.

You are a very poor mind reader.
Cops can definitely do wrong. When they do, they should be held accountable. But police can only go by the facts on the ground. They are not clairvoyant and thus their ability to prevent crimes is limited by the evidence they have at the time. Should they also have foreseen that she was a murderer and arsonist and arrested her?

 

[Derec]

Well you know what Derek? Had that wife beating, woman hating, prick of a husband of hers been behind BARS THE FIRST TIME HE BEAT HER TO A BLOODY PULP, she wouldn't have had to kill him to save her and her children's lives. So, it seem that your unfair and misogynist patriarch society is really what did this dude in. Blame them.

She did not have to murder him (and yes, it was brutal, cold-blooded murder). But, you only care when a woman is murdered by a man, never when a man is murdered by a woman. Then, victim blaming and murderer excusing are in full force.

 

[Derec]

I saw the film. While in normal circumstances she would have committed murder, to her this was the only way of self defence.

It was not only not the only way of self defense, murdering somebody in their sleep is not a form of self defense at all! Besides, we only have her word for it that he did all the things she claims he did. Women who murder their boyfriends and husbands always claim abuse in order to try to manipulate the jurors into letting them off. Remember Mary Winkler? Got away with 60 days for manslaughter. Remember Nikki Redmond? Got away entirely? Remember Jodi Arias? In her case, jury did not let themselves be manipulated.
But even if he all those things, that still does not justify murder. She could have left. She had to leave anyway once she burned the house down, so she was certainly capable of doing that.

While I don't think a plea of temporary insanity is necessary this makes the defence simpler. In such a circumstance, this was to her, her only option which a court should accept.

No it was not. She got away with coldblooded and particularly brutal murder just because she, as a woman, managed to manipulate the jury.

 

[Derec]

Yup, the law says if the threat isn't imminent you go to the cops but if it's proven the cops won't help??? I don't think I could vote to convict in such a situation.

Why not? She could have easily left without committing arson and premeditated murder first.
Besides, you are assuming that everything she said was 100% true and nothing was invented, exaggerated or embellished in the aid of her defense. She had a vested interest in lying about the abuse, and he was dead and not able to defend himself or rebut any of her claims. Very convenient for a murderer.

If the genders were reversed and the claims the same, would you be so quick to believe a man who set his wife on fire?

 

[Derec]

In fact, the police had even been there the day before she killed him because he had beaten her up yet again and the neighbors called. While there, police heard him threatening her and he even threatened the police officers. But it was a different time then. They left without arresting him... again.

Citation needed. And no, the one-sided feminazi movie that glorifies this murderer does not count.

 

[Derec]

I had a co-worker once whose "girlfriend" was always threatening to call the cops and have him thrown in jail for some sort of abuse if he did not do this or that for her. I am only mention this because it is a flip so to speak of what this thread is about, male on female abuse. She would call him on the phone and scream and threaten him with the poor guy reduced almost to tears. I put up with this for a week and then have enough it is not self rectified and talk to him about it. He explained that he was afraid she would lie and say he did something he didn't do if he did not give into her and he would have to spend time in jail. I told him the next time she called for us to go to the back and put the phone on speaker. Sure enough she calls and wants fifty dollars to go do whatever with. I whisper to him to tell her "no" and when he does you can hear glass break. She says " I just busted out a window in the kitchen door and I cut myself. If you don't give me the ------ money I'll call the cops and tell them you slammed me into the door and made it break and cutting me." I then pick up the phone, explain who I was, and that I heard the entire conversation. I told her if she followed through on the threat I would contact the police and tell them what she has said. I told her she was not ever to try to pull that shit again much less call up at work and distrurb my workforce anymore. Then I hung up. She hasn't tried that crap anymore.

And if she had murdered him she would certainly have claimed "abuse" to try to get away with it.
See Mary Winker. See Nikki Redmond (even though she was the jealous stalker with a gun). See Jodi Arias (in her case, it luckily did not work). Juries are predisposed to believe a woman and blame the man for his own murder, sadly.

 

[Keith&Co.]

by claiming conveniently timed temporary insanity.

Dude, it's not 'conveniently' timed.
No one is saying that she just happened to suffer insanity coincidentally with the murder.
The temporary insanity is WHY she killed him. He and other factors such as police failure to save her drove her to and past a breaking point.

Police can't arrest people based on what they possibly might do in the future.

But they can shoot someone dead if they think he's armed or might be armed, or is acting in a manner they think is consistent with being a criminal, or they think he is not going to cooperate with their commands, and many on this board will support that action.

 

[Keith&Co.]

She did not have to murder him

In your judgment. But the whole point of her defense was that she was not capable of judgment. So your objection doesn't apply.

 

[Derec]

For me that is the deal breaker. If the cops will not deal with a problem like abuse then whatever happens to an abuser after that is his bad. You're basically telling her he is free to shit all over her and no one will do anything to stop it.

That quoted portion only says that the police talked to them, not that they ignored any evidence that should have made them arrest the guy.
I think that if police ignored evidence, they are at fault. I disagree that it justifies murder of a defenseless, sleeping person.

Like the "girlfriend" of the man I mentioned above he found some loophole where he was going to keep doing whatever he wanted because no one would do anything. The "girlfriend" knew if she called the cops my employee would go to jail just for the accusation, at least for a few hours.

Yes, police are very quick to arrest the man in a domestic violence situation, even when the female is lying. That leads me to believe that Francine did not really have any evidence that she was abused, or her husband would surely have been arrested.

Even if it didn't hold up in court getting arrested could still cost him his job, money on a lawyer, ect. The man burned to death by his wife was basically told how he could keep abusing his wife and nothing was going to be done about it.

But don't you realize that these two things are very contradictory. In one case, it is very easy for a woman to get a man arrested even for made-up abuse, in the second you claim it is virtually impossible for a man to get arrested for real abuse. You can't have it both ways. In fact, it is the readiness with which police arrest the man in domestic violence situations that leads me to believe Francine at the very least exaggerated/embellished her claims to manipulate the jury. Just like Winkler, Redmond and Arias did.

The sad thing about this is that the employee's father is a police chief and he says the chief's wife does the same thing to his dad. If this is true and a police chief is grabbed by the balls then what about the rest of us?

Yet more reason to doubt Francine's sob story. I think she is guilty as sin and should have had a date with the needle a long time ago!

 

[Derec]

She did not have to murder him

In your judgment. But the whole point of her defense was that she was not capable of judgment. So your objection doesn't apply.

Not capable of judgment for the precise interval of time required to commit murder and arson, but not so either before or after.