Violence Against Women and Stand Your Ground

[TSwizzle]

Women whose lives are in danger should be able to invoke Stand Your Ground defense.
It still has to go through courts like anyone else, but acknowledging that someone who faces serious injury or death, and cannot just walk away due to extortion or hostages or threats of pursuit is indeed able to Stand Their Ground and use lethal self defense.

I believe stand your ground is only applicable when faced with imminent danger.

As it says in the OP:
imagine a hostage situation. You are held hostage, and you are not ~at that moment~ in danger, but you will be, and everyone knows it. Yes, you can plot to kill your kidnapper when they aren’t looking so you can escape alive.

Once you are free from being a hostage, I don’t think the law allows you to return a week later with an accomplice and execute your tormentor and get a slap on the wrist. I’m sure if you killed the kidnapper in the process of escaping that would be viewed differently. For both male and female.

 

[Rhea]

Women whose lives are in danger should be able to invoke Stand Your Ground defense.
It still has to go through courts like anyone else, but acknowledging that someone who faces serious injury or death, and cannot just walk away due to extortion or hostages or threats of pursuit is indeed able to Stand Their Ground and use lethal self defense.

I believe stand your ground is only applicable when faced with imminent danger.

Currently yes, and that is the entire premise of the OP. Stand Your Ground is written to protect men. It needs to be re-examined in light of the fact that a person may need to stand their ground from ONGOING danger that can reignite AT ANY TIME.

This is not something men face. And the law does not care about people who face this kind of danger.

It needs to be re-examined. You have discovered the point of the thread.

As it says in the OP:
imagine a hostage situation. You are held hostage, and you are not ~at that moment~ in danger, but you will be, and everyone knows it. Yes, you can plot to kill your kidnapper when they aren’t looking so you can escape alive.

Once you are free from being a hostage, I don’t think the law allows you to return a week later with an accomplice and execute your tormentor and get a slap on the wrist. I’m sure if you killed the kidnapper in the process of escaping that would be viewed differently. For both male and female.

The abused spouse cannot excape from the kidnapper. That is the point. The kidnapper will hunt you down and kill you. Most women who are murdered by their partner are murdered just as or just after they try to escape.

This kind of danger is not covered in the stand your ground laws, which are written to legally protect men from the results of their defense in the situations men find themselves in, and offers no legal protection for women for the results of their defense in the situations women find themselves in.

Resulting in men being able to leagally defend themselves from harm and death, and women not able to legally defend themselves from harm and death.


That is the point of the thread. The Stand Your Ground laws need to be re-examined with an eye toward truly protecting people who need to defend their own lives.

To wit, in the opening post of this thread:

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.

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.

 

[TSwizzle]

Currently yes, and that is the entire premise of the OP. Stand Your Ground is written to protect men.

I don’t know about that law being written explicitly for men but even if it was, it would certainly cover women in the exact same situation.

It needs to be re-examined in light of the fact that a person may need to stand their ground from ONGOING danger that can reignite AT ANY TIME.

Hmm, I don’t think so. I think the way to go would introduce a new law that covers what you are concerned about which is different to a stand your ground situation which is about imminent danger, car jacking, home invasion etc.

This is not something men face. And the law does not care about people who face this kind of danger.

It needs to be re-examined. You have discovered the point of the thread.

I agree but at the same time, I’d be very wary about a lax law that allows someone to commit premeditated, possibly revenge murder. We know that restraining orders do not work to protect women.

The abused spouse cannot excape from the kidnapper.

Well, yes they can mostly. Sadly, many choose not to with deadly consequences.

That is the point. The kidnapper will hunt you down and kill you.

Very possibly, in your mind more than likely. But do you really want a law that gives license for premeditated murders? I can see a situation where the woman is at home, terrified that her abuser is going to come home drunk and she prepares herself with a gun to defend herself and kills her abuser as soon as things kick off. That would be a stand your ground situation in my opinion. But if the woman and an accomplice lure her abuser to a secluded spot and kill him, I don’t think that is the same thing, quite different in fact.

Most women who are murdered by their partner are murdered just as or just after they try to escape.

This kind of danger is not covered in the stand your ground laws, which are written to legally protect men from the results of their defense in the situations men find themselves in, and offers no legal protection for women for the results of their defense in the situations women find themselves in.

Resulting in men being able to leagally defend themselves from harm and death, and women not able to legally defend themselves from harm and death.


That is the point of the thread. The Stand Your Ground laws need to be re-examined with an eye toward truly protecting people who need to defend their own lives.

Sure, I’m all for protecting women but I’m not as gung ho about offing an abusive partner as a solution to these situations. It is something to consider.

 

[Gospel]

Great points, TSwizzle. I believe what's needed is a law similar to 'Stand Your Ground,' offering legal protection or a defense for abused women who kill their spouse as a direct result of prolonged abuse. This could be framed as 'justifiable homicide' or a 'battered woman defense,' where the law recognizes the extreme circumstances of domestic violence and shields them from prosecution under such conditions.

 

[Jarhyn]

Great points, TSwizzle. I believe what's needed is a law similar to 'Stand Your Ground,' offering legal protection or a defense for abused women who kill their spouse as a direct result of prolonged abuse. This could be framed as 'justifiable homicide' or a 'battered woman defense,' where the law recognizes the extreme circumstances of domestic violence and shields them from prosecution under such conditions.

I already pointed out how I would frame it: there was no "open way".

This does raise questions when everyone involved lacks the money to really "leave". You can only throw a 1 meter tungsten cube so far with a rotten rubber band after all, and just trying may cause no change and break the runner band all at the same time.

It would imply that much like with society, the society itself takes on a burden by creating the guarantee of a right. It's an important enough right that I would say this should be considered "fine", and would be by everyone except those who wished to abuse a captive party. After all, any person could potentially need a guarantee of an open way.

 

[bigfield]

A whack on the seat of learning with a rolled up newspaper would have been more effective. Works on puppies I'm reliably informed.

A wise man once said,

Indeed. Parents often complain that their children do not pay attention to them. They are paying attention. Just to the wrong parts of us.

So perhaps using violence to send a message is not the lesson you really want to teach.

I found that asking the kids to think through what their behavior would result in did the trick, no need to treat them like badly treated dogs.

Memo to one's self.
Most Americans would not recognise sarcasm if if he walked up to them and slapped them hard across the chops.

Some people think it’s okay to make sarcastic jokes about the abuse of children and are suprised when other people are not amused by it. It happens.

Curious; do you have children? Do you whack them? Do you think it’s funny sarcasm to talk about whacking them? Would they think so?

Sigh.
The original comment that got up your nose was a quote from Snoopy (I am sure you are familiar with that creature? It is fictional by the way). Take it up with Charles Schultz.

This was meant to be a sarcastic comment?

A whack on the seat of learning with a rolled up newspaper would have been more effective. Works on puppies I'm reliably informed.

If people aren't picking up your humour then it's not because they're American.

Do I have children? Yes , a precious daughter

Do you whack her? When she was small she was smacked. Now her husband can deal with her on a day-to-day basis.

(Again too many Yanks cannot detect sarcasm even if it whacked them across the chops.)

Oh I see the sarcasm here; you're using it to express contempt for your daughter, whom you hit when she was a small child.

Good thing you didn't have a son.

 

[Tigers!]

Do I have children? Yes , a precious daughter

Do you whack her? When she was small she was smacked. Now her husband can deal with her on a day-to-day basis.

(Again too many Yanks cannot detect sarcasm even if it whacked them across the chops.)

Oh I see the sarcasm here; you're using it to express contempt for your daughter, whom you hit when she was a small child.

Good thing you didn't have a son.

Thank you for your unsolicited advice on child rearing.
I would be more than happy to compare my child raising of my daughter against the child raising on any of your children.
My daughter was raised not to be pompous and arrogant.

 

[bigfield]

Thank you for your unsolicited advice on child rearing.

I didn't give you any. But your sarcasm is improving, so...well done!

 

[Toni]

That's not how the law sees it. She was in the garage, alone--she was not in danger. She chose to enter the room where he was, thus starting a new confrontation. The fact that the second developed from the first is irrelevant, the key is that she went from a place of safety to a place of known danger.

Exactly! No danger! All she has to do now is stay in the garage for the rest of her life and never come out, and of course he will never ever force his way in, so she is Completely Safe (tm) in the garage of her house, forever! She was in a Place of Safety(tm) !

It’s like, if you hide behind the counter and get a gun out of your pocket so that you can protect yourself when you stand up, that’s be wrong, see, because you were behind the counter and standing up just moves you into a place of known danger. Just stay hidden until, well, until he leaves. Because STAND YOUR GROUND means you have to hide, not fire, unless you’re a man, and then it’s okay. And if you’re a cop, you can just fire at people trying to run away from you because they **COULD BE** a threat later and you are justified shooting them.

But if you’re a woman, and you’ve already been beaten up a dozen times, and your life explicitly and literally threatened, then your duty is to hide forever.

And that Loren, is exactly the problem and your callous and murderous disregard for the right of women to protect themselves from known and repeated dangers is displayed once again.

It’s handy that you have repeated ALL of your tropes right here in the last few postings, so one doesn’t even have to go far to find your viewpoint typed out.

Summing up:
- If you’re a gun-toting male who is not even in your house, you can find, stalk, follow, and confront someone and then shoot them dead and it is “self defense” for you. (Even while the other person reacting to your stalking does not get self defense, because they are black and therefore likely guilty of something)
- If you’re a cop, you can shoot anyone dead at any time and it is self defense because they might intiate an attack at any moment, using a car, a knife, a phone or their hands. Just shoot them dead, it’s self defense. You’re frightened for you life.
- If you’re a woman who has been beaten and threatened with death, the only possible chance at claiming self defense is if you give your (again, you repeated, actively threatening) attacker an even chance. And even then you will likely not get to claim self defense because you could have hidden for the rest of your life, instead.


Self Defense for men: easy to claim, easy to win. Walk away.
Self Defense for battered women: not an available option. Go to jail for murder.


So go back to the OP and see why all of your claims are simply misogyny. They perpetuate the different standards of “defense” to only accommodate situations where males need defense. I’ll paste it for your review. You’ve just demonstrated exactly what the problem is as a real-life person who actually thinks that self defense only covers men.

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.

This is true but should include, if the male is white. Black men may be fired upon at will, except in some cases when the woman is also black. That would be a 50/50 scenario

 

[Toni]

Do I have children? Yes , a precious daughter

Do you whack her? When she was small she was smacked. Now her husband can deal with her on a day-to-day basis.

(Again too many Yanks cannot detect sarcasm even if it whacked them across the chops.)

Oh I see the sarcasm here; you're using it to express contempt for your daughter, whom you hit when she was a small child.

Good thing you didn't have a son.

Thank you for your unsolicited advice on child rearing.
I would be more than happy to compare my child raising of my daughter against the child raising on any of your children.
My daughter was raised not to be pompous and arrogant.

It’s pretty obvious that any such inclinations were knocked right out of her.

 

[Tigers!]

Do I have children? Yes , a precious daughter

Do you whack her? When she was small she was smacked. Now her husband can deal with her on a day-to-day basis.

(Again too many Yanks cannot detect sarcasm even if it whacked them across the chops.)

Oh I see the sarcasm here; you're using it to express contempt for your daughter, whom you hit when she was a small child.

Good thing you didn't have a son.

Thank you for your unsolicited advice on child rearing.
I would be more than happy to compare my child raising of my daughter against the child raising on any of your children.
My daughter was raised not to be pompous and arrogant.

It’s pretty obvious that any such inclinations were knocked right out of her.

She is indeed a most wonderful daughter. God blessed my wife and I greatly when we had her to raise.

 

[Toni]

Do I have children? Yes , a precious daughter

Do you whack her? When she was small she was smacked. Now her husband can deal with her on a day-to-day basis.

(Again too many Yanks cannot detect sarcasm even if it whacked them across the chops.)

Oh I see the sarcasm here; you're using it to express contempt for your daughter, whom you hit when she was a small child.

Good thing you didn't have a son.

Thank you for your unsolicited advice on child rearing.
I would be more than happy to compare my child raising of my daughter against the child raising on any of your children.
My daughter was raised not to be pompous and arrogant.

It’s pretty obvious that any such inclinations were knocked right out of her.

She is indeed a most wonderful daughter. God blessed my wife and I greatly when we had her to raise.

I think that is always interesting to learn what other parents value in their children. I was raised explicitly to think for myself, and I tried to pass that down to my own children. I value the ability to think and act independently, but with kindness and consistency seating and generosity for others over compliance.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not how the law sees it. She was in the garage, alone--she was not in danger. She chose to enter the room where he was, thus starting a new confrontation. The fact that the second developed from the first is irrelevant, the key is that she went from a place of safety to a place of known danger.

Exactly! No danger! All she has to do now is stay in the garage for the rest of her life and never come out, and of course he will never ever force his way in, so she is Completely Safe (tm) in the garage of her house, forever! She was in a Place of Safety(tm) !

We have no indication one way or the other if she had other options.

Had he forced his way in I would have no problem with her shooting him.

It’s like, if you hide behind the counter and get a gun out of your pocket so that you can protect yourself when you stand up, that’s be wrong, see, because you were behind the counter and standing up just moves you into a place of known danger. Just stay hidden until, well, until he leaves. Because STAND YOUR GROUND means you have to hide, not fire, unless you’re a man, and then it’s okay. And if you’re a cop, you can just fire at people trying to run away from you because they **COULD BE** a threat later and you are justified shooting them.

Depends on the safety of the situation you are in and whether there are any others at threat.

- If you’re a gun-toting male who is not even in your house, you can find, stalk, follow, and confront someone and then shoot them dead and it is “self defense” for you. (Even while the other person reacting to your stalking does not get self defense, because they are black and therefore likely guilty of something)

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

- If you’re a cop, you can shoot anyone dead at any time and it is self defense because they might intiate an attack at any moment, using a car, a knife, a phone or their hands. Just shoot them dead, it’s self defense. You’re frightened for you life.

You keep acting as if there was some large number of improper shootings.

- If you’re a woman who has been beaten and threatened with death, the only possible chance at claiming self defense is if you give your (again, you repeated, actively threatening) attacker an even chance. And even then you will likely not get to claim self defense because you could have hidden for the rest of your life, instead.

If she was really that afraid of him why did she initiate another confrontation a few days later? Even then she was offered a plea but she chose to fight it in court and the jury decided she was the aggressor.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Great points, TSwizzle. I believe what's needed is a law similar to 'Stand Your Ground,' offering legal protection or a defense for abused women who kill their spouse as a direct result of prolonged abuse. This could be framed as 'justifiable homicide' or a 'battered woman defense,' where the law recognizes the extreme circumstances of domestic violence and shields them from prosecution under such conditions.

I agree with the concept, not the implementation.

Battered woman defense--no, it's ongoing abuse. While it is usually man against woman it should cover all cases.

Justified homicide--no, that's the outcome.

Fundamentally, the situation is a pattern of abuse that makes the victim believe they have no escape short of killing their abuser. I do believe this is an acceptable justification for deadly force.

Note that it does not include situations where both parties are abusive.

 

[ZiprHead]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

 

[Gospel]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

I see the relevance of the Trayvon and Zimmerman case, but lets stay focused on the broader issue Rhea raised—how 'Stand Your Ground' laws often disproportionately benefit men and fail to address the very real dangers women face in abusive situations.

There has always existed the opportunity to improve existing laws, or create new ones, that ensure equal protection for everyone, especially for women who live under the constant threat of life-threatening abuse. Why we haven’t done this yet is beyond me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Women in abusive situations need more than just services—they need support and encouragement embedded in the law itself.

We need to make abusers aware that they could justifiably face legal consequences, even to the extent of losing their lives. What's in place now simply isn't enough.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

I see the relevance of the Trayvon and Zimmerman case, but lets stay focused on the broader issue Rhea raised—how 'Stand Your Ground' laws often disproportionately benefit men and fail to address the very real dangers women face in abusive situations.

For gawd sakes, please no more Martin - Zimmerman. That derail will kill this thread.

There has always existed the opportunity to improve existing laws, or create new ones, that ensure equal protection for everyone, especially for women who live under the constant threat of life-threatening abuse. Why we haven’t done this yet is beyond me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Women in abusive situations need more than just services—they need support and encouragement embedded in the law itself.

Abuse is designed to be self-containing (at least these days, back in the good ole days, it was to be expected). But thankfully, with the help of some, accusations of rape and abuse can often come with a large heaping pile of doubt towards the abused. BONUS! The world is designed to help shelter and protect the abusers, not the abused (legally, socially, and even financially). This thread is just more evidence of it.

We need to make abusers aware that they could justifiably face legal consequences, even to the extent of losing their lives. What's in place now simply isn't enough.

Abusers are always facing the potential of legal consequences. They still do it. Obfuscation can help them to lie to themselves about it as well. Fear of the law has rarely ever held a person back from breaking it, especially when it comes to spousal or relationship abuse.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women whose lives are in danger should be able to invoke Stand Your Ground defense.
It still has to go through courts like anyone else, but acknowledging that someone who faces serious injury or death, and cannot just walk away due to extortion or hostages or threats of pursuit is indeed able to Stand Their Ground and use lethal self defense.

I believe stand your ground is only applicable when faced with imminent danger.

The abused are generally in imminent danger, the fear is constant, the abuse is TBD. by the abuser. I think what you meant to say is 'in the process of or just about to be beaten'. Only if the abused were all in such a good state to be properly armed when getting abused. Of course, if they were properly armed, then some might ask why was she armed in the first place, and isn't this just premeditated murder?

As it says in the OP:
imagine a hostage situation. You are held hostage, and you are not ~at that moment~ in danger, but you will be, and everyone knows it. Yes, you can plot to kill your kidnapper when they aren’t looking so you can escape alive.

Once you are free from being a hostage, I don’t think the law allows you to return a week later with an accomplice and execute your tormentor and get a slap on the wrist. I’m sure if you killed the kidnapper in the process of escaping that would be viewed differently. For both male and female.

I suppose the question comes down to whether the abused felt their life was still in danger. That'd be a case by case basis thing, not a 'this is my opinion based on an article and having almost no detailed information about the case... and even less empathy for the abused.'

 

[Gospel]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

I see the relevance of the Trayvon and Zimmerman case, but lets stay focused on the broader issue Rhea raised—how 'Stand Your Ground' laws often disproportionately benefit men and fail to address the very real dangers women face in abusive situations.

For gawd sakes, please no more Martin - Zimmerman. That derail will kill this thread.

There has always existed the opportunity to improve existing laws, or create new ones, that ensure equal protection for everyone, especially for women who live under the constant threat of life-threatening abuse. Why we haven’t done this yet is beyond me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Women in abusive situations need more than just services—they need support and encouragement embedded in the law itself.

Abuse is designed to be self-containing (at least these days, back in the good ole days, it was to be expected). But thankfully, with the help of some, accusations of rape and abuse can often come with a large heaping pile of doubt towards the abused. BONUS! The world is designed to help shelter and protect the abusers, not the abused (legally, socially, and even financially). This thread is just more evidence of it.

We need to make abusers aware that they could justifiably face legal consequences, even to the extent of losing their lives. What's in place now simply isn't enough.

Abusers are always facing the potential of legal consequences. They still do it. Obfuscation can help them to lie to themselves about it as well. Fear of the law has rarely ever held a person back from breaking it, especially when it comes to spousal or relationship abuse.

First, I was actually trying to put an end to the derail, not steer the train wreck back on course.

Second, I understand your point that abusers often face legal consequences yet continue their harmful behavior. I agree that the fear of legal repercussions alone may not always be enough to stop abusers from acting, particularly in situations where they're skilled at manipulation or feel immune to consequences.

However, this is precisely why the law needs to evolve. While legal consequences are a factor, what's often missing is a legal framework that actually empowers abuse victims—especially women—by giving them the means to protect themselves before it’s too late. Right now, abusers can manipulate the system, making it difficult for victims to seek protection or escape. Creating laws that recognize the unique, ongoing danger these victims face would offer stronger deterrents and better support mechanisms, helping prevent violence before it escalates to fatal levels.

Yes, the world is often structured to protect abusers, but that’s why we need to change the laws to tip the balance in favor of victims. It’s not about fear of punishment for the abuser alone—it’s about giving victims the tools, legal backing, and protection to defend themselves against ongoing abuse.

In short, we need to shift the focus from reactive punishment to proactive protection. That’s where real change can happen.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And where do we have an example of this? Zimmerman followed. He did not confront.

Trayvon was talking on the phone with his girlfriend when he was attacked by Zimmerman.

I see the relevance of the Trayvon and Zimmerman case, but lets stay focused on the broader issue Rhea raised—how 'Stand Your Ground' laws often disproportionately benefit men and fail to address the very real dangers women face in abusive situations.

For gawd sakes, please no more Martin - Zimmerman. That derail will kill this thread.

There has always existed the opportunity to improve existing laws, or create new ones, that ensure equal protection for everyone, especially for women who live under the constant threat of life-threatening abuse. Why we haven’t done this yet is beyond me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Women in abusive situations need more than just services—they need support and encouragement embedded in the law itself.

Abuse is designed to be self-containing (at least these days, back in the good ole days, it was to be expected). But thankfully, with the help of some, accusations of rape and abuse can often come with a large heaping pile of doubt towards the abused. BONUS! The world is designed to help shelter and protect the abusers, not the abused (legally, socially, and even financially). This thread is just more evidence of it.

We need to make abusers aware that they could justifiably face legal consequences, even to the extent of losing their lives. What's in place now simply isn't enough.

Abusers are always facing the potential of legal consequences. They still do it. Obfuscation can help them to lie to themselves about it as well. Fear of the law has rarely ever held a person back from breaking it, especially when it comes to spousal or relationship abuse.

First, I was actually trying to put an end to the derail, not steer the train wreck back on course.

Second, I understand your point that abusers often face legal consequences yet continue their harmful behavior. I agree that the fear of legal repercussions alone may not always be enough to stop abusers from acting, particularly in situations where they're skilled at manipulation or feel immune to consequences.

Legal consequences don't stop murder... even in Texas. Abuse is already against the law. One can't make it more against the law than against the law.

However, this is precisely why the law needs to evolve. While legal consequences are a factor, what's often missing is a legal framework that actually empowers abuse victims—especially women—by giving them the means to protect themselves before it’s too late. Right now, abusers can manipulate the system, making it difficult for victims to seek protection or escape. Creating laws that recognize the unique, ongoing danger these victims face would offer stronger deterrents and better support mechanisms, helping prevent violence before it escalates to fatal levels.
Yes, the world is often structured to protect abusers, but that’s why we need to change the laws to tip the balance in favor of victims. It’s not about fear of punishment for the abuser alone—it’s about giving victims the tools, legal backing, and protection to defend themselves against ongoing abuse.

In short, we need to shift the focus from reactive punishment to proactive protection. That’s where real change can happen.

As I noted in my post, abuse is managed through social, financial, and legal manners. The simple fact of having "no where else to go" can help an abuser quite a bit. With the mindsets in our nation as is, doubt is pressed forth and eliminates the avenues needed to be constructed to get people out of abusive relationships. Money, a place to live, health care, children... changing a law here or there doesn't address the social inadequacies which put the abused a gross disadvantage.

Also I'm certain you meant to prevent violence. *end statement*