Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[Rhea]

I am gifting this article in the NYT that discusses how “stand your ground” laws fail people who are standing their ground against “murder by installment” (an insightfully evocative phrase) from a superior strength.

Opinion | Who Gets to Kill in Self-Defense?

Self-defense laws were written for men. This is how they fail women who fight back.

www.nytimes.com

The main takeaways for me is the new realization that we design the stand your ground laws around a certain, very specific male problem: the male stranger intruder of a man’s home or space, but that it fails utterly to protect women from the men who are already given ownership of a space to harm all those in it.

One striking paragraph:

A society’s penal code functions in part as an expression of its values — as one avenue through which we say: This act deserves punishment, this one mercy. No one wants to simply give a free pass to women who kill. But it must also be acknowledged that there are people whose lives remain beholden to forces of violence or threats of violence that they cannot be expected to simply walk away from on their own. We make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax. We do so because throughout the history of our legal system, we have been inclined — in many cases, overly inclined — to make exceptions for men’s violence while giving very little thought to what might drive women to the same act.

And

such women shouldn’t be charged in the first place. “As criminal law scholars, we believe that self-defense is justified,” she told me. In her law classes, she uses a kidnapping analogy. If someone kidnaps and ties up a person and then falls asleep and the kidnapped person manages to get free and kill the kidnapper, would it seem appropriate to charge that person with murder?

Frequently people will ask, “why didn’t they leave?” And you can see when you read this article why they did not. From threats to children and family members to the loss of agency that even allows the victim to consider that they even can escape it.

I realize after reading this how important it is to change the self-defense and stand your ground laws to include defense against repeated abuse, and to include actually being supported in standing your ground when you are in your own home and threatened not by a stranger who has just arrived, but by a person you cannot kick out and who will be there again tomorrow, or later tonight, threatening you again until you are finally dead.

 

[Tigers!]

Definitely worth more than a cursory glance.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, an uncomfortable question: lets assume for a moment a situation (I have directly witnessed two relationships that satisfy this scenario; it is not hypothetical) wherein all the same things as are true in the "stand your ground" defense, wherein one partner is abusing and the other is abused. The absused partner is not believed as to the nature and severity of their abuse. They cannot easily leave the relationship or home; there is no safe place to go, and there are children in the home.

I have never witnessed something so severe, but I would be willing to bet that there are people of both genders who strictly control the car keys in a household, or who as I have observed directly, who feel no compunction against attempting to physically control a phone.

I think there's an unfortunate corollary to that "anyone can cook" concept from Ratatouille. It was explicitly stated to mean that (spoilers): Not everyone can become a great [chef] but a great [chef] can come from anywhere. The corollary is that so too can an abuser.

I'm not sure the framing in terms of women is inappropriate per SE, but I would far rather a framing in terms of spouses. I would much rather rescind "stand your ground" and push a similar doctrine of allowing the "captive spouse" defense, and passing some judicially recognized standard of evidence for it.

I would call them on the books, "captive spouse" defense laws or "open way" laws, which is to say, if there is no "open way" to leaving, there ought be a legal defense to making one.

 

[Derec]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men. Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

And you want to make it even easier for women to get away with murder?

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

 

[Derec]

I would call them on the books, "captive spouse" defense laws or "open way" laws, which is to say, if there is no "open way" to leaving, there ought be a legal defense to making one.

When Marissa Alexander left her ex's house to retrieve a gun from her car and came back to shoot toward him and his children, the feminist brigades here and elsewhere have defended her even though she had an open way to leaving. Just because she is a woman.
Note that when she was released on bail, she went to her victim's house again and attacked him. And yet, because she is female, she is automatically considered the "victim". Same goes for women who murdered men - Mary Winkler and Nikki Redmond have been defended here as well.

 

[TSwizzle]

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

It’s an odd article for sure. One of the women, Ms Ford hired two men to murder her abusive husband. Hardly self defense.

 

[Arctish]

I would call them on the books, "captive spouse" defense laws or "open way" laws, which is to say, if there is no "open way" to leaving, there ought be a legal defense to making one.

When Marissa Alexander left her ex's house to retrieve a gun from her car and came back to shoot toward him and his children, the feminist brigades here and elsewhere have defended her even though she had an open way to leaving. Just because she is a woman.
Note that when she was released on bail, she went to her victim's house again and attacked him. And yet, because she is female, she is automatically considered the "victim". Same goes for women who murdered men - Mary Winkler and Nikki Redmond have been defended here as well.

Marissa Alexader's case is a good example of what the OP describes.

Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, a person has no duty to retreat and may use lethal force if threatened or if they simply believe they are in danger. But using a gun to fire a warning shot got Alexander a 20 year prison sentence despite her having more than sufficient reason to believe her estranged husband would attack her just like he'd done in the past.

Obviously the law is deeply flawed. But I think the OP is right about the unspoken intent behind that law: to shield white men who use lethal force. I don't think the people who pushed for SYG to become law ever intended it to exonerate women who shoot their partners or husbands, or blacks and POC who shoot whites.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men.

Frequently?

Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

Well, that is two cases at least.

And you want to make it even easier for women to get away with murder?

Indeed, some people want to give carte blanche to males who recklessly put themselves in potentially dangerous situations (thanks to the hubris due to them being armed), and then using deadly force to save their arses. And then appear not nearly as quick to provide cover for women. In fact, almost to the point of an obsession.

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

Said by a person that apparently is unfamiliar with abuse.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I would call them on the books, "captive spouse" defense laws or "open way" laws, which is to say, if there is no "open way" to leaving, there ought be a legal defense to making one.

When Marissa Alexander left her ex's house to retrieve a gun from her car and came back to shoot toward him and his children, the feminist brigades here and elsewhere have defended her even though she had an open way to leaving. Just because she is a woman.
Note that when she was released on bail, she went to her victim's house again and attacked him. And yet, because she is female, she is automatically considered the "victim". Same goes for women who murdered men - Mary Winkler and Nikki Redmond have been defended here as well.

Marissa Alexader's case is a good example of what the OP describes.

Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, a person has no duty to retreat and may use lethal force if threatened or if they simply believe they are in danger. But using a gun to fire a warning shot got Alexander a 20 year prison sentence despite her having more than sufficient reason to believe her estranged husband would attack her just like he'd done in the past.

Obviously the law is deeply flawed. But I think the OP is right about the unspoken intent behind that law: to shield white men who use lethal force. I don't think the people who pushed for SYG to become law ever intended it to exonerate women who shoot their partners or husbands, or blacks and POC who shoot whites.

Maybe it should be renamed “Stand His Ground” law.

 

[southernhybrid]

Thanks for posting this Rhea. I had read the article when it came out and thought about posting it here, but I can see from some of the replies that some men don’t understand what it’s like for a woman, to be excessively abused by a man, especially when the man is much stronger than her and has threatened her and physically harmed her numerous times. It’s insane that the first woman received life without parole and remains in prison for more than 40 years and is now about 65 years old, if I remember correctly from my initial read of the piece. This is sexist! While it’s true that there are a small number of women who physically abuse their partners, it’s almost always men who are the attackers and imo, no woman should get life in prison for what is obviously an attempt to free herself from constant violence. I do wonder if some of the men commenting bothered to read the entire article. I recall some of the children of the women saying if their fathers had not been killed, they would not be alive, as they were also threatened by these deranged men. I don’t care if the women had to have help killing these men. They should have at least been given much less severe sentences, if found guilty. But the fact that what they endured wasn’t even permitted to be entered as evidence in many of these cases, shows that we still live in a country where women aren’t treated as equals, when it comes to defending themselves.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men.

Frequently?

Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

Well, that is two cases at least.

And you want to make it even easier for women to get away with murder?

Indeed, some people want to give carte blanche to males who recklessly put themselves in potentially dangerous situations (thanks to the hubris due to them being armed), and then using deadly force to save their arses. And then appear not nearly as quick to provide cover for women. In fact, almost to the point of an obsession.

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

Said by a person that apparently is unfamiliar with abuse.

Ah yet another double standard from Derec, and typical of a conservative like Derec to be replete with double standards. Probably because they don't think about anything.

 

[starwater]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men.

Frequently?

Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

Well, that is two cases at least.

And you want to make it even easier for women to get away with murder?

Indeed, some people want to give carte blanche to males who recklessly put themselves in potentially dangerous situations (thanks to the hubris due to them being armed), and then using deadly force to save their arses. And then appear not nearly as quick to provide cover for women. In fact, almost to the point of an obsession.

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

Said by a person that apparently is unfamiliar with abuse.

Ah yet another double standard from Derec, and typical of a conservative like Derec to be replete with double standards. Probably because they don't think about anything.

Its BLACK AND WHITE ONLY with this poster. If x equals y then its always z. There is no gray area, no room for discussion. Women are victims scamming the system period because both sexes have committed abuse.

 

[Toni]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men. Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

And you want to make it even easier for women to get away with murder?

From the idiotic opinion article:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

Neither despicable racist cowards Zimmerman nor Rittenhouse killed anyone in self defense.

Mary Winkler was arrested, tried by a jury of her peers and her husband’s peers and did not receive the verdict you think she should have. She agreed with you. But she got the verdict and she received she got just as Zimmerman and Rittenhouse and let’s just throw in OJ all received verdicts exonerating them. The Central Park Fyve were convicted and later exonerated. Emmet Till was murdered for something that was not a crime—and his killers walked, and later those who were exonerated gave interviews for money detailing how they tortured and murdered Til—and got paid to do it.

Sometimes the justice system dies not get it right, sometimes because of fear and racism

 

[Rhea]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men. Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

So frequently that we can take, for example, murders that happened 18 and 19 years ago as indicative that this is FREQUENT!

:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

I can’t tell if you didn’t understand the article or if you are trying to snow us, or if you genuinely do not understand violence against women at all.

The whole point of the article is that when one suffers repeated violence in a place where one is threatened for trying to escape and especially in the environment that the most deadly time for a women is when she is trying to escape these situations, that you don’t comprehend the self defense needed.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

You define self defense as needing “immediate threat”, showing that you don’t understand the article.

The immediate threat is, “if you ever try to leave me, I will kill you.”

It seems so cold, so achingly heartless, to pretend that isn’t the topic.

 

[Toni]

Women already frequently get away with murdering men. Take Mary Winkler who murdered her husband in cold blood while he was sleeping. Or Nikki Redmomd, who followed her boyfriend to another woman's house and fatally shot him in the back.

So frequently that we can take, for example, murders that happened 18 and 19 years ago as indicative that this is FREQUENT!

:

we make this allowance when we acquit men like George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse, neither of whom for a single second were dragged by the hair through a hallway or had their children threatened with an ax.

Both of them acted in actual self defense. They did not murder somebody while they were sleeping. They did not murder their girlfriend by shooting her in the back because she was cheating on them.

I can’t tell if you didn’t understand the article or if you are trying to snow us, or if you genuinely do not understand violence against women at all.

The whole point of the article is that when one suffers repeated violence in a place where one is threatened for trying to escape and especially in the environment that the most deadly time for a women is when she is trying to escape these situations, that you don’t comprehend the self defense needed.

There is a difference between self defense, which requires immediate threat, and murder for revenge or jealousy.

You define self defense as needing “immediate threat”, showing that you don’t understand the article.

The immediate threat is, “if you ever try to leave me, I will kill you.”

It seems so cold, so achingly heartless, to pretend that isn’t the topic.

Seems wrong to hit like for a post so tragically true.

Female Murder Victims and Victim-Offender Relationship, 2021

bjs.ojp.gov

34% of women who die by murder or non-negligent homicide are killed by intimate partners, compared with 6% of men who are murdered or who die from non-negligent homicide. More than three quarters of women who are murdered are killed by someone they know.

 

[Tigers!]

There are too many women/children dying at the hands of men in Australia too.

This one of the most recent worse incidents. The police should have shot the bastard.

It should not be beyond us to devise ways to protect women/children and all those who need it.

 

[Toni]

We need to do much more to prevent violence towards women and children —and men —all people. We need to do much more to treat mental illnesses and to help people cope with stresses and strains that all of us experience but for some, much more than others.

 

[starwater]

The Olymipic Runner from Uganda Rebecca Cheptegei
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c3vx0kq2xr2o

Was doused in gasoline and set on fire by her boyfriend. He also just died of his burns.

African countries also have this issue and give it a name of femicide.

​

​

 

[TSwizzle]

You define self defense as needing “immediate threat”, showing that you don’t understand the article.

That's what self defense is. I don't think you or the article understand what self defense is.

The immediate threat is, “if you ever try to leave me, I will kill you.”

That is a serious threat but I don't know that you can kill your spouse/partner/whatever three days later and claim self defense.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You define self defense as needing “immediate threat”, showing that you don’t understand the article.

That's what self defense is. I don't think you or the article understand what self defense is.

You seem unfamiliar with what trauma is.

The immediate threat is, “if you ever try to leave me, I will kill you.”

That is a serious threat but I don't know that you can kill your spouse/partner/whatever three days later and claim self defense.

You seem unfamiliar with what abuse is. Like doe eyed deer level clueless.