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

[Keith&Co.]

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.

A very appropriate picture, since all you're doing is giving one of your sermons, without any sort of support.

 

[Derec]

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.

And the insanity then miraculously turned off or what?
A mental illness that comes on suddently, allows you to commit serious crimes (murder, arson) with impunity, and then suddenly switches off (so you don't have to go to a loony bin) is very convenient indeed. If I was on the jury, I would not buy it.

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.

Don't derail. We have had plenty on threads on police shootings already.

- - - Updated - - -

A very appropriate picture, since all you're doing is giving one of your sermons, without any sort of support.

On the contrary, I have yet to see any support for the assertion that this "temporary insanity" was anything but a convenient excuse that allowed this woman to commit arson and premeditated murder without being held accountable for it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And the insanity then miraculously turned off or what?

Exactly how long do you think temporary insanity lasts?

If I was on the jury, I would not buy it.

Well, you weren't on the jury, you didn't sit through the trial, so who gives a shit how you already know you would vote in a similar trial?

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.

Don't derail. We have had plenty on threads on police shootings already.

YOU brought up the idea that the police cannot act on what people are GOING to do. But it's been demonstrated that they CAN do things in anticipation of behavior that hasn't yet occurred. So you're wrong.

On the contrary, I have yet to see any support for the assertion that this "temporary insanity" was anything but a convenient excuse that allowed this woman to commit arson and premeditated murder without being held accountable for it.

No one has needed to defend that assertion. That's the actual decision from the trial. YOU asserted that it's an excuse that was accepted only because of a vagina-enhanced defendant. You've yet to support this opinion with anything but more bluster and opinion.

 

[Derec]

Exactly how long do you think temporary insanity lasts?

Apparently just enough to allow the person to commit the crime. Then it vanishes without a trace, except that defense lawyers can miraculously detect it and convince the idiot jurors that it was totally real and not just a convenient excuse.

Well, you weren't on the jury, you didn't sit through the trial, so who gives a shit how you already know you would vote in a similar trial?

Well I am not gullible enough to fall for "temporary insanity" nonsense. That was my whole point.

YOU brought up the idea that the police cannot act on what people are GOING to do.

They cannot act on what they are possibly going to do at some point the future. Police shooting are about what they think suspect is about to do imminently. For example, if a suspect is running from them, pulls out a dark object from the waistband and turns around, they can assume the suspect is about to shoot them. But if they are called on a domestic, and there is really no evidence either way, they cannot assume that there will be a murder later that night.

But it's been demonstrated that they CAN do things in anticipation of behavior that hasn't yet occurred. So you're wrong.

Now you are being purposely obtuse. Police cannot act based on what somebody might possibly do in the future. Imminent actions are qualitatively different.

No one has needed to defend that assertion. That's the actual decision from the trial. YOU asserted that it's an excuse that was accepted only because of a vagina-enhanced defendant. You've yet to support this opinion with anything but more bluster and opinion.

Do you have a case where a man was let off based on a "temporary insanity" defense after he set his wife on fire while she slept?

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Please produce actual evidence she lied about any abuse whatsoever or stop confusing your vile views about women with actual fact.

 

[Playball40]

Nonsense. NOBODY believed Jody Aries ever.

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.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

Seriously Derec, go look it up yourself. If you had done that first instead of starting yet another vile piece of crap thread advertising how much you hate women, you'd know what went on for 14 years before she snapped and killed him. As for your bullshit crack about me getting the facts from a movie, kiss my ass. I have a long reputation of being far more intellectually honest than that, and have a long-proven record of using (and typically providing) honest/factual sources. But you have already admitted that you don't know shit about this case and don't want to, so I am not going to waste my time providing you with anything.

And the police DID know what he was doing to her. They just couldn't do anything about it under the laws of the day. Her case is actually what started changing that situation, and providing some protections for people being abused by their spouses.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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!

I disagree. As far as I'm concerned all that matters is that you reasonably believe there is no other path to safety. (And, yes, I know the law disagrees with me on this. The law says you go to the cops if the threat isn't imminent--never mind whether the cops will actually be able to prevent it. It should impose an additional burden of proof--why going to the cops wouldn't work--but should be possible.)

- - - Updated - - -

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?

One of the standard tactics of abusers is to make their victims think they'll be hunted down and killed if they try to escape. Furthermore, reality shows that that is not an idle threat--leaving an abuser is dangerous, they sometimes snap and do a murder/suicide.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And the insanity then miraculously turned off or what?
A mental illness that comes on suddently, allows you to commit serious crimes (murder, arson) with impunity, and then suddenly switches off (so you don't have to go to a loony bin) is very convenient indeed. If I was on the jury, I would not buy it.

Put someone under enough stress and they're going to snap. The only question is how much stress it takes. When the level of stress is extreme we tend to call such actions temporary insanity.

Without the level of stress they're fine. Put them under that level of stress again and they'll likely snap again--but when the level of stress is well beyond what most people will ever endure we tend to feel they don't need locking up.

Prison serves basically two purposes: deterrence and protecting society.

Will putting the person in jail deter another person in similar circumstances? No, they aren't thinking straight at the time anyway. What's come before means little.

Are they likely to commit the crime (or other crimes) again? We are talking about a level of stress that they're very unlikely to encounter again in their life. Thus the chance of recurrence is low.

What's the point of prison in such a case?

 

[Malintent]

What do you think I am missing about this case and the fucked-up verdict?

all of the evidence and testimony... context, history, precedent, relevant case law... pretty much everything but "woman kills man and doesn't get the death penalty" parts.

 

[Malintent]

And the insanity then miraculously turned off or what?
A mental illness that comes on suddently, allows you to commit serious crimes (murder, arson) with impunity, and then suddenly switches off (so you don't have to go to a loony bin) is very convenient indeed. If I was on the jury, I would not buy it.

Yes, very convenient.. that is why we evolved brains that can compartmentalize and rationalize with great fluidity. What would you have our brains do in times of extreme stress? BSOD?

Reminds me of Star Trek (well, what doesn't?)

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMegqgGORY[/YOUTUBE]