More female privilege

[Derec]

And hey if a scrawny black teen can become a sidewalk-wielding human tornado in Florida, then people can trick cops into making a false arrest for reality tv.

If you mean St. Trayvon, he was hardly "scrawny".

 

[laughing dog]

She has been recorded hiring the hit man. The three jurors are either blathering idiots or else voted to acquit knowing she was guilty.

There other possibilities. For example, they are three intelligent, disinterested people who care about real justice.
I have no idea - and neither do you.

Either way, they would not be voting to acquit if the genders were reversed.

You confuse your disgusting biases with fact.

 

[Derec]

I'm not here to make you a better man.

What does "better man" mean to you anyway? One who thinks women are innocent victims no matter what they do (like hire hit men to murder their husbands).

However you choose to justify your particular prejudices is your business.

It's not a prejudice. It's a fact that women often get treated with kid gloves when they murder or try to murder their husbands or boyfriends. Mary Winkler got 60 days for murdering her husband in cold blood. Nikki Redmond got acquitted for shooting her boyfriend in the back, murdering him.

If you are ever on trial for a charge in which the testimony of a policeman whose professional performance will be rated as to whether he convinced you he was willing to commit a crime on your behalf, let's hope you find a sympathetic jury.

The case does not hinge of his testimony. She is on tape hiring the hit man. The only reason you even think she might be innocent is because she is female. If a man had hired a hit man and was recorded doing so, there would be no question that he would be convicted. No matter how many ridiculous stories of "reality TV show pitches" his lawyers came up with.

- - - Updated - - -

There other possibilities. For example, they are three intelligent, disinterested people who care about real justice.

If they were that they would have voted to convict.

You confuse your disgusting biases with fact.

Name one case where a man hired a hit man and was recorded doing so and was not convicted.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

And hey if a scrawny black teen can become a sidewalk-wielding human tornado in Florida, then people can trick cops into making a false arrest for reality tv.

If you mean St. Trayvon, he was hardly "scrawny".

That's right, he was a killing machine armed with large hunks of sidewalks. Good thing mentally stable and upright citizen Zimmerman was on duty that night. There's no saying what might have happened if that superdindu was able to make purple dank!

 

[Bronzeage]

What does "better man" mean to you anyway? One who thinks women are innocent victims no matter what they do (like hire hit men to murder their husbands).

However you choose to justify your particular prejudices is your business.

It's not a prejudice. It's a fact that women often get treated with kid gloves when they murder or try to murder their husbands or boyfriends. Mary Winkler got 60 days for murdering her husband in cold blood. Nikki Redmond got acquitted for shooting her boyfriend in the back, murdering him.

If you are ever on trial for a charge in which the testimony of a policeman whose professional performance will be rated as to whether he convinced you he was willing to commit a crime on your behalf, let's hope you find a sympathetic jury.

The case does not hinge of his testimony. She is on tape hiring the hit man. The only reason you even think she might be innocent is because she is female. If a man had hired a hit man and was recorded doing so, there would be no question that he would be convicted. No matter how many ridiculous stories of "reality TV show pitches" his lawyers came up with.

- - - Updated - - -

In this case, "better man" would be a person who is capable of having a satisfying relationship with another person. However, be assured, if it were in my power, I would give it a shot, if only to shut you up.

You over estimate your powers of extra sensory perception. I never said I thought she was innocent, or might be innocent, your attempt to read my mind, not withstanding.

I have been married 3 times, and had a few serious relationships in between. In the past 45 years of deep emotional commitments in relationships with women, not a single one of them tried to hire a hit man to kill me. At least as far as I know.

In any case, your concern over being murdered by a hired killer is greatly overblown, and your indictment of women in general is unwarranted.

 

[laughing dog]

If they were that they would have voted to convict.

Maybe, maybe not.

Name one case where a man hired a hit man and was recorded doing so and was not convicted.

I know of no case where a man is recorded hiring a hitman and who made the defense that he was play acting and that he was entrapped. Do you have any cases like that where the man was convicted? After all, someone who is concerned with equality in the law would wish to compare apples to apples, not apples to turds.

 

[atrib]

And hey if a scrawny black teen can become a sidewalk-wielding human tornado in Florida, then people can trick cops into making a false arrest for reality tv.

If you mean St. Trayvon, he was hardly "scrawny".

And on and on it goes. Derec is outraged that a woman who apparently tried to hire a hitman to kill someone beat the charge. But when a black teenager is hunted down and killed by an armed vigilante and the jury lets the killer go, Derec slanders the victim. Derec's racist bullshit never takes a day off. It is good thing he is not able able to procreate.

 

[Elixir]

If you mean St. Trayvon, he was hardly "scrawny".

And on and on it goes. Derec is outraged that a woman who apparently tried to hire a hitman to kill someone beat the charge. But when a black teenager is hunted down and killed by an armed vigilante and the jury lets the killer go, Derec slanders the victim. Derec's racist bullshit never takes a day off. It is good thing he is not able able to procreate.

Someone told me Derec thinks kids are an STD. Don't know if it's true, but I heard that. It's what I heard. So some people think so.

 

[Derec]

And on and on it goes. Derec is outraged that a woman who apparently tried to hire a hitman to kill someone beat the charge.

Everybody should be outraged at that.

But when a black teenager is hunted down and killed by an armed vigilante and the jury lets the killer go, Derec slanders the victim. Derec's racist bullshit never takes a day off. It is good thing he is not able able to procreate.

It's "slander" and "racist" to say Trayvon wasn't scrawny? Also, why do you and Squirrel keep bringing him up almost five years later?

 

[Elixir]

Everybody should be outraged at that.

Why? The accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond and doubt considered reasonable by the jury, under the judge's instructions.

But when a black teenager is hunted down and killed by an armed vigilante and the jury lets the killer go, Derec slanders the victim. Derec's racist bullshit never takes a day off. It is good thing he is not able able to procreate.

It's "slander" and "racist" to say Trayvon wasn't scrawny?

Coming from anyone else, it might not be. If it sounds like a duck but walks like a human, it's probably not a duck. OTOH, if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck...

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, so, we know reality has biases. Usually these are liberal biases, since humans, and life in general started out doing things in shitty ways and have gotten better at doing things over time.

And in this case, it's a problem in nature that 'men', or more specifically humans with a lot of testosterone and/or a particular vulnerability to its effects tend towards revenge, necessary or not. It's not hard to see how a 'woman', or for that matter anyone who is lacking in the effects of testosterone could very easily find herself in a situation where a jilted lover wants to kill or maim her as revenge, and she ends up being unable to convince skeptical law enforcement that he presents enough of a danger to actually jail him for his threats. Sometimes the religion of 'law' strikes so deep that even if they believe her, they refuse to help because the written rules haven't been satisfied to do so. Sometimes the law outright gives the revenge-minded lover free reign right until the point where she is dead and buried.

In the face of these realities, sometimes a person will need to hire protection, but in the face of a persistent and clever psychotic revengist, more extreme measures need to be taken; it costs a lot to hire a body guard and a patient but evil person can easily outlast most people's funds to hire muscle that they otherwise couldnt manage. So they hire people to kill the fucker. And sometimes a jury of one's peers recognize the simple ethical reality of a situation at this point:

The cops were being lazy or 'lawful neutral', the woman was in danger of a psychotic asshole, and it was either her life or limb, or his life or limb, or that from her perspective it was the only option she had and that she didn't do anything wrong and doesn't deserve a the consequences of conviction even of time served.

That isn't female privilege, and is a perfectly reasonable situation where a jury would acquit someone even in full light that they did it.

Was it what happened here? We don't know. But I'm going to guess from the way things went down and that most people are mostly right most of the time that the accusation that this is privilege rather than defense of the innocent is spurious.

 

[RavenSky]

Hires a hitman to murder her husband, but despite video and audio evidence that has her dead to rights, she avoids conviction again.

The Latest: Retrial planned after murder-for-hire mistrial
Does anybody really think if it was a man hiring a hitman to murder his wife that 3 jurors would refuse to convict? Or that the appellate judge would overturn the original conviction?

It is reading cases of evil women like this one that I am really glad to be single.

Did you miss the part in the headline you quoted that said a retrial is already planned?

P.S. I have it on very good authority that the mistrial was not because of "female privilege" but because the jury wanted to see you have another meltdown

- - - Updated - - -

From what I've read in other threads, this indicates she was 'overcharged'

 

[Derec]

Did you miss the part in the headline you quoted that said a retrial is already planned?

I have not. There is still some hope, but given female privilege and attitudes of feminists like Jarhyn I am not too optimistic this woman sees justice (which would be a 20 year sentence as she originally received).

 

[RavenSky]

Did you miss the part in the headline you quoted that said a retrial is already planned?

I have not. There is still some hope, but given female privilege and attitudes of feminists like Jarhyn I am not too optimistic this woman sees justice (which would be a 20 year sentence as she originally received).

Given your hatred of women, you won't be satisfied unless she gets the death penalty... twice

 

[Derec]

Ok, so, we know reality has biases. Usually these are liberal biases, since humans, and life in general started out doing things in shitty ways and have gotten better at doing things over time.

Bullshit.

And this post of yours has perfectly summed up the evil that is modern feminism. You advocate murder as long as it a woman doing (or at least ordering) it.

And in this case, it's a problem in nature that 'men', or more specifically humans with a lot of testosterone and/or a particular vulnerability to its effects tend towards revenge, necessary or not. It's not hard to see how a 'woman', or for that matter anyone who is lacking in the effects of testosterone could very easily find herself in a situation where a jilted lover wants to kill or maim her as revenge, and she ends up being unable to convince skeptical law enforcement that he presents enough of a danger to actually jail him for his threats. Sometimes the religion of 'law' strikes so deep that even if they believe her, they refuse to help because the written rules haven't been satisfied to do so. Sometimes the law outright gives the revenge-minded lover free reign right until the point where she is dead and buried.

1. Women are capable of being abusive in their relationships, just like men.
2. Police should not blindly believe claims of abuse without evidence.
3. If anything, police are more skeptical of abuse claims made by men against women than vice versa.

So you should be much more understanding toward men who kill their wives (or hire hit men to do so) than women who do so, because they are more likely to be disbelieved and not taken seriously by police.

In the face of these realities, sometimes a person will need to hire protection, but in the face of a persistent and clever psychotic revengist, more extreme measures need to be taken; it costs a lot to hire a body guard and a patient but evil person can easily outlast most people's funds to hire muscle that they otherwise couldnt manage. So they hire people to kill the fucker. And sometimes a jury of one's peers recognize the simple ethical reality of a situation at this point:

So in a nutshell you advocate murder of men by women. No other way to say it. Also, I thought advocacy of illegal acts (and murder certainly is one) was against the TOU.

The cops were being lazy or 'lawful neutral', the woman was in danger of a psychotic asshole, and it was either her life or limb, or his life or limb, or that from her perspective it was the only option she had and that she didn't do anything wrong and doesn't deserve a the consequences of conviction even of time served.

You are assuming that if a woman murders (or hires somebody to murder) her husband she is doing it because he is a "psychotic asshole" and not, like this woman, because of money or some other reason. And do you extend the same benefit of doubt to men who murder (or hire somebody to murder) their wives? Do you assume that the wife was a "psychotic asshole" and think that "he didn't do anything wrong and doesn't deserve a the consequences of conviction even of time served"?

That isn't female privilege, and is a perfectly reasonable situation where a jury would acquit someone even in full light that they did it.

If you extend this "right to murder" to women and only women then this is the very definition of privilege.

Was it what happened here? We don't know. But I'm going to guess from the way things went down and that most people are mostly right most of the time that the accusation that this is privilege rather than defense of the innocent is spurious.

This woman is anything but "innocent". There is no evidence her husband was abusive and even if he was, that does not justify murder. She could have just left him.

 

[Derec]

Given your hatred of women, you won't be satisfied unless she gets the death penalty... twice

Since her victim was luckily not killed, 20 years is enough.
Had she hired an actual hit man and succeeded then life in prison or death penalty would certainly be appropriate, just like it would be if a man murdered his wife.

I believe men and women should face equal punishment for equal crimes. I guess to you and a certain failed presidential candidate that is tantamount to "hatred of women".

 

[Derec]

Why? The accused is innocent until proven guilty, beyond and doubt considered reasonable by the jury, under the judge's instructions.

May I quote you in the Michael Slager thread?

Coming from anyone else, it might not be.

In other words, you are basing this not on anything I wrote but on your personal antipathy toward me.

 

[Derec]

Someone told me Derec thinks kids are an STD. Don't know if it's true, but I heard that. It's what I heard. So some people think so.

You are confusing me with House, and even there you got it a bit wrong.

 

[Derec]

I know of no case where a man is recorded hiring a hitman and who made the defense that he was play acting and that he was entrapped. Do you have any cases like that where the man was convicted? After all, someone who is concerned with equality in the law would wish to compare apples to apples, not apples to turds.

Obviously we should strive to compare like and like, but if you demand too many details you will never find a basis for comparison.
A case of a spouse hiring a hitman and instead ends up talking to a cop pretending to be a hit man is the apple. The exact excuse the defendant offers is too specific.

 

[Derec]

In this case, "better man" would be a person who is capable of having a satisfying relationship with another person.

I doubt that is even possible. I have read an article in Psychology Today which said that women have a "double-bind" when it comes to choosing partners. Those they are attracted to they do not consider good long term relationship material and those they consider good long term relationship material they are not attracted to.

However, be assured, if it were in my power, I would give it a shot, if only to shut you up.

Give a shot at what?

You over estimate your powers of extra sensory perception. I never said I thought she was innocent, or might be innocent, your attempt to read my mind, not withstanding.

But you still advocate her possibly getting off scot-free?

In any case, your concern over being murdered by a hired killer is greatly overblown, and your indictment of women in general is unwarranted.

I agree the chances are small. I have not 'indicted' women in general of being murderers. My point is that the society treats murderous women with kid gloves, giving them lesser punishments than they would a man in the same situation, and often let them off with no punishment at all.