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

[Derec]

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.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

Wow, what a bitter, shriveled, vindictive little heart you have there, Derec.


Also this doesn't belong in the politics forum. There's nothing political about it. It's just Derec wishing pain and suffering on a woman because she was acquitted of a crime she confessed to.

 

[Derec]

Wow, what a bitter, shriveled, vindictive little heart you have there, Derec.

So I am "bitter, shriveled, vindictive" because I want men and women to receive equal punishment for equal crimes. This female privilege of being able to get away with murdering your husband or boyfriend is extremely sexist.
And what about compassion for her victim? For all his alleged faults, he did not deserve to be burned alive, and his murderer should have been convicted of first degree murder and arson. Don't you agree with that?

Also this doesn't belong in the politics forum. There's nothing political about it. It's just Derec wishing pain and suffering on a woman because she was acquitted of a crime she confessed to.

Gender disparity in criminal penalties is very much a political issue. Feminazis love to take up the cause of women who murder (Mary Winkler, Carla Harris, Nikki Redmond, Crystal Magnum) or mutilate (Lorena Bobbit) their husbands or boyfriends. So how is it not political? Note that the failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explicitly advocates even more gender-based criminal penalties:
Hillary Clinton: Women and prison -- the cost in money and lives
Still think it's non-political?

 

[zorq]

Derec, the jury didn't acquit her because of "abuse" OR "feminism." They acquitted her because of "insanity." So far you show extremely little understanding of this case and a great deal of negative emotion. Lord Kirian's assessment of the OP is more accurate.

 

[Derec]

Derec, the jury didn't acquit her because of "abuse" OR "feminism." They acquitted her because of "insanity."

The fact they did not send her to the loony bin means that they did not really think she was crazy (or at least not any more than all the male arsonists and murderers being sent to prison and death row on the regular). The "temporary insanity" was just an excuse, backed up by nothing, for the jury to acquit her even though her guilt was proven far beyond reasonable doubt.

So far you show extremely little understanding of this case and a great deal of negative emotion. Lord Kirian's assessment of the OP is more accurate.

I know she deliberately and with malice aforethought set a man on fire and murdered him. I know she got away with her crimes, and that feminists celebrated that verdict and this cold-blooded murderer.
What do you think I am missing about this case and the fucked-up verdict?

 

[LordKiran]

So I am "bitter, shriveled, vindictive" because I want men and women to receive equal punishment for equal crimes. This female privilege of being able to get away with murdering your husband or boyfriend is extremely sexist.
And what about compassion for her victim? For all his alleged faults, he did not deserve to be burned alive, and his murderer should have been convicted of first degree murder and arson. Don't you agree with that?

Also this doesn't belong in the politics forum. There's nothing political about it. It's just Derec wishing pain and suffering on a woman because she was acquitted of a crime she confessed to.

Gender disparity in criminal penalties is very much a political issue. Feminazis love to take up the cause of women who murder (Mary Winkler, Carla Harris, Nikki Redmond, Crystal Magnum) or mutilate (Lorena Bobbit) their husbands or boyfriends. So how is it not political? Note that the failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton explicitly advocates even more gender-based criminal penalties:
Hillary Clinton: Women and prison -- the cost in money and lives
Still think it's non-political?

Yes. To both.

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

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.'

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Wow, what a bitter, shriveled, vindictive little heart you have there, Derec.


Also this doesn't belong in the politics forum. There's nothing political about it. It's just Derec wishing pain and suffering on a woman because she was acquitted of a crime she confessed to.

Derec has enough threads on the same basic topic that he could probably start his own "Hobby Horse" sub forum by now.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.)

 

[laughing dog]

The fact they did not send her to the loony bin means that they did not really think she was crazy (or at least not any more than all the male arsonists and murderers being sent to prison and death row on the regular).

Um, the jury found her not guilty. That means they had no power to send her anywhere.

The "temporary insanity" was just an excuse, backed up by nothing, for the jury to acquit her even though her guilt was proven far beyond reasonable doubt.

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.

You can pretend your views about "equality" but your persistent vile rhetoric and unrelenting disgusting straw men about women tell otherwise.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Because feminism.

In 1977?
I don't recall 1977 being a hotbed of feminism. They were trying, but they were getting beaten down no pun intended on a regular basis.

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

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







Get HELP, Derec.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Derec, the jury didn't acquit her because of "abuse" OR "feminism." They acquitted her because of "insanity." So far you show extremely little understanding of this case and a great deal of negative emotion. Lord Kirian's assessment of the OP is more accurate.

Yeah, it is pathetic.

Maybe if he just thought of it as a "Standing your Ground" case?

 

[Playball40]

Wow your hatred of women is showing again. Clearly you have no idea of the details of this situation - EVEN THE POLICE testified on behalf of Francine. How the FUCK you can defend Zimmerfuck and say his killing of Trayvon was self defense but this woman was a vindictive bitch murderer really shows how skewed your view of justice really is. How miserable it must be to go through life with so much hatred.

 

[Derec]

Wow your hatred of women is showing again.

No, hatred of murderers. And the society that allows female murders to get away with it.

Clearly you have no idea of the details of this situation - EVEN THE POLICE testified on behalf of Francine.

If that was really the case, then they were derelict in their duties.

How the FUCK you can defend Zimmerfuck and say his killing of Trayvon was self defense but this woman was a vindictive bitch murderer really shows how skewed your view of justice really is.

Because Z didn't set Trayvon on fire while he was sleeping. Killing a sleeping person can never be self defense.

How miserable it must be to go through life with so much hatred.

I hate evil murders. She did not have to murder him to get rid of him. That was her choice and she should have been held responsible for making that choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe if he just thought of it as a "Standing your Ground" case?

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Good one!

 

[Derec]

In 1977? I don't recall 1977 being a hotbed of feminism. They were trying, but they were getting beaten down no pun intended on a regular basis.

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?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

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.

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

But by 1977 it had stopped being ratified by any more states.
And three or four states that HAD ratified it had rescinded their ratification by 1978. So, yes, in 1977 it was dying. The anti-ERA people were pulling out all the stops, 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.

No, your idea that feminism had anything to do with the jury's decision is farcical.

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

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.

 

[Derec]

Um, the jury found her not guilty. That means they had no power to send her anywhere.

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!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Just because she is a female

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

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

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

 

[Derec]

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.)

Sorry, but she was able to get out of this situation without resorting to arson and murder. She made a conscious decision to murder somebody and she should have been held responsible for her choice.

Note also that this gives female (and only female, there is no way a jury would buy that excuse from a man) murderer an opportunity to either make up or exaggerate stories of abuse in order to get away with murder.
Remember Mary Winkler? There was no credible evidence that she was abused by her victim. And yet she and her shyster managed to use the "battered wife" defense to pretty much let her get away with cold-blooded murder. After all, the murder victim is dead and can not defend himself or in any way contradict the yarn she and the lawyers are spinning against him.