Woman Sentenced To Nine Years For Killing Rapist

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yeah. Men tend to dislike women who get enraged. Especially after small things such as rape or threatening to rape your child. Now, if she had been protecting her son from a rapist, it might have been different. Still, she should have submitted to the male police authorities instead of acting out of rage.

Oh wow. You actually went there. My money was on mere outrage against a murdered rapist, which is understandable and I was about to halfway agree like ron (he nailed this one perfectly), but you actually went after the gender of the child.

 

[Toni]

OK, I just reread the article. I had first seen it as him being alive when she dragged him behind the car and this is what killed him and it was going too far on her part and she deserved jail for it. He actually died of the stabbing. That was self-defense and I have no issue with his death.

Upon consideration of that point, the improper disposal of the body merits some community service on her part and perhaps she should bake some cupcakes for the people who then had to go out and hose down the streets he bled all over. Nine years in prison is not warranted.

Like you I have zero problem with a person killing their rapist in self defense. In fact, a person who we can be certain committed a violent rape should get a penalty of death. However, this guy's death was caused by an accumulation of many stab wounds and injuries. Odds are that he was incapacitated and wounded well before he died, which makes it no longer self-defense but killing as punishment and to ensure he could never harm her or her daughter in the future. Which, again, is understandable and I don't have a moral problem with it assuming all her claims about his actions and threats are true. However, unless we are going to allow deadly vigilantly justice, then she committed a serious violent crime that went beyond self defense. So, manslaughter was the correct verdict and she'll wind up serving 4-5 years for it.

Also, Toni's response to you is still an irrational strawman. You simply pointed out that people cannot be allowed to kill other people even when the are traumatized, or rightfully filled with vengeful rage. She, as usual, made it all about gender bias and accused you of assuming that it is only "ladies" who must not kill out of vengeance and that rape isn't a big deal or trauma causing.

You really are not understanding the situation or at least not the way I understood it, having looked up and read several accounts of the killing.

I don’t believe in the death penalty. Full stop.

I do believe in defending one’s self and one’s child from the credible threat of very serious harm. There seems to be no controversy over whether or not he raped her initially. That seems to be established fact. She did not initially report the rape—just as millions of other women do not report, for many, many reasons. Surely she was traumatized. Then the person who traumatized her came back: one of the worst nightmares for any rape victim. Worse, he threatened to rape her daughter if she did not submit to him. So, he fully intended to rape her again—and credibly her daughter as well. She had no reason to believe he would not. He already came back.

I don’t know why she didn’t call the police instead of grabbing a knife. Maybe the knife was closer. Maybe he had her phone.

The trauma from the rape, the additional trauma of finding her rapist in her home again, threatening to rape her and her daughter: surely those events were significantly traumatic that she was not thinking: I’ll just stab him once an he’ll leave me alone. I’m sure her trauma and PTSD kicked in and all rational thought left her.

Do I think this was a good thing? Of course not. But I don’t know what I would do if someone were threatening my child with grave harm. Except to make sure I stopped him.

You men folk sure do seem to get your panties in quite a twist whenever a woman loses it on a guy, even if he raped her, is threatening to do it again, and is threatening her daughter as well.

Didn’t you notice: she’s blonde and pretty. It’s not like she were fat or black or something like that.

 

[Toni]

Since when is death the penalty for rape?

I thought you gun nut types were all for protecting your home and property from threats. Stand your ground and all that shit?

But then, maybe to you a woman’s body and that if her daughter is less important than any cash or electronics a black man midnight take from your home.

Still, from the picture, she’s blonde. I would have thought that would have garnered her some sympathy...

You should have read the rest of the post you quoted and not just the first line. You would have not only had your answer, but an interesting point to consider along the lines of what you said.

You mean the part where you contradicted the first sentence?

This didn’t happen in Colorado for one thing, so those laws are irrelevant.

I assumed your first sentence was what you really meant.

 

[RavenSky]

Forget the nominal "9 years". She will be able to get out in 2020, because she is a woman.
That's entirely too light a punishment. Especially since her victim is dead and cannot contradict any of her self-serving claims.

...

 

[RavenSky]

Ya I don’t know. A life or death fight, you keep stabbing until you’re sure it’s done. You don’t step back and reassess the situation halfway through. I’d give her that one.

Me too. And I can also see her continuing to stab him long after he was dead. This man raped her and - if that wasn't enough - threatened her child. I'd be feeling really really stabby, too.

According to one of the articles, the initial rape had only been a couple of days earlier.

The same article said she pleaded guilty, so maybe that had something to do with the sentence (which I think was excessive under the circumstances)

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Forget the nominal "9 years". She will be able to get out in 2020, because she is a woman.
That's entirely too light a punishment. Especially since her victim is dead and cannot contradict any of her self-serving claims.

...

You didn't quote him saying she lied. You quoted him saying what she is saying can't be contradicted by him. That's not the same thing. So the counter still runs.

 

[laughing dog]

Forget the nominal "9 years". She will be able to get out in 2020, because she is a woman.
That's entirely too light a punishment. Especially since her victim is dead and cannot contradict any of her self-serving claims.

...

You didn't quote him saying she lied. You quoted him saying what she is saying can't be contradicted by him. That's not the same thing. So the counter still runs.

Technically, that is correct. But there is no reason to bring up the possibility of contradiction of a claim unless one thinks it may be false. In this specific instance, the poster in question has a long and documented history of calling women who claim rape "liars" and denying the same regard to the lack of the victim's story whenever the victim is a "thug".

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You didn't quote him saying she lied. You quoted him saying what she is saying can't be contradicted by him. That's not the same thing. So the counter still runs.

Technically, that is correct. But there is no reason to bring up the possibility of contradiction of a claim unless one thinks it may be false.

Of course it MAY be false*. You would say otherwise? Is the woman incapable of lying?

* - "It may be false" does not equal "it is false" just in case that needs to be made more clear.

 

[Derec]

But I don’t know what I would do if someone were threatening my child with grave harm. Except to make sure I stopped him.

How do you know she is telling the truth?
In cases like Zimmerman vs. Trayvon, much stink is being raised about the dead guy not being able to tell his side of the story and the statements of the killer being "self-serving". Why aren't you, RavenSky and others raising similar points in this case?

You men folk sure do seem to get your panties in quite a twist whenever a woman loses it on a guy,

As opposed to women, who do not mind when a man loses it on a gal ...

even if he raped her, is threatening to do it again, and is threatening her daughter as well.

We only have her word for it. Physical evidence seems to indicate overkill, even if it was initially self defense, and she hid the body instead of calling police, which is suspect.

 

[Derec]

...

I did not say she was lying. She may be lying though. Especially since her statements (whether true or not) are self-serving and since she hid the body. That is suspect, don't you think?

 

[Derec]

Me too. And I can also see her continuing to stab him long after he was dead. This man raped her and - if that wasn't enough - threatened her child. I'd be feeling really really stabby, too.

Self-defense is different that violence for sake of revenge. Once the victim is incapacitated, continuing to stab is nobody's idea of self-defense.
There was a case in Minnesota where some old geezer ambushed some teenagers who broke into his house and murdered them.
Certainly his home was violated. Certainly he would be entitled to use deadly force against home invaders. But being entitled to self defense does not make one entitled to murder.
He got convicted, and did not get the sweetheart deal this woman got.

According to one of the articles, the initial rape had only been a couple of days earlier.

How do we know that, if she didn't report it?

The same article said she pleaded guilty, so maybe that had something to do with the sentence (which I think was excessive under the circumstances)

I think it's too light, given she is eligible for parole in 2020. But it may be defensible if it was a plea deal.

All this said, this is certainly a better outcome than the Mary Winkler travesty, which was defended on here.

 

[Derec]

Technically, that is correct. But there is no reason to bring up the possibility of contradiction of a claim unless one thinks it may be false.

There are reasons to think it may be false:
- it is self-serving.
- she failed to report the killing, electing instead to hide the body. That raises legitimate suspicions and skepticism of anything she says.

In this specific instance, the poster in question has a long and documented history of calling women who claim rape "liars"

Wrong as usual.
I do not call women "liars" just for claiming rape. I reserve this for those accusers for whom there is strong evidence they lied - women like Tawana Brawley, Crystal Magnum (luckily, when she later stabbed a man, the jury did not believe her self-serving story), Jackie Coakley or Mattress Girl.

and denying the same regard to the lack of the victim's story whenever the victim is a "thug".

Right back at you. If "dead men tell no tales" is relevant in cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, then it certainly is relevant here.

 

[Jarhyn]

Self-defense is different that violence for sake of revenge. Once the victim is incapacitated, continuing to stab is nobody's idea of self-defense.
There was a case in Minnesota where some old geezer ambushed some teenagers who broke into his house and murdered them.
Certainly his home was violated. Certainly he would be entitled to use deadly force against home invaders. But being entitled to self defense does not make one entitled to murder.
He got convicted, and did not get the sweetheart deal this woman got.


How do we know that, if she didn't report it?

The same article said she pleaded guilty, so maybe that had something to do with the sentence (which I think was excessive under the circumstances)

I think it's too light, given she is eligible for parole in 2020. But it may be defensible if it was a plea deal.

Certainly a better outcome than the Mary Winkler travesty, which was defended on here.

I find it quite telling that certain people are on here bringing up the marijuana in an innocent man's apartment or car or body as a soft justification for police shootings, but try to downplay the significance of a rape in a self defense against a credible threat. I think she went over the line dragging his corpse behind her car, and mutilating his body. Perhaps a few years in jail will help her understand the inappropriateness of her actions. But I know some folks who CERTAINLY got off too easy: the cops who murdered people out of their own craven fear. So, where has your outrage been for THEIR light treatment by those tasked with upholding the law? Are you not going to believe her, when you clearly believe cops who provided the exact same level of "it happened because said so" Proof, even in the face of contradicting witness testimony?

Am I going to ever see you say "If she was raped, she had every right to use lethal force in direct response to a credible and immediate threat, from the same person as raped her before, that he would rape her and her child"? And maybe we can let it die there?

Edit: it seems to me to be a pattern, wherein a woman does some thing to protect her body, and you try your best to find fault, but a man does something heinous and craven, and you simply don't care enough to comment, except to sometimes defend the craven murderer and bring up dirt about the victim. This is what Misogyny is shaped like.

 

[Derec]

On what factual basis do you make the claim?

It says so in the article. She is eligible for parole as soon as 2020. Wanna bet she'll get out on the first try? Say $20?

According to the cited article, there seemed to be no doubt that the victim was a rapist. Are you claiming one cannot kill to prevent being raped?

Use of deadly force for self-defense is allowed. But self-defense cannot use more than the level of force which is reasonable. Also, hiding the body suggests she had something to hide. Why not call the police and tell them she was attacked if she was? Was she afraid of police processing the scene for evidence?


By the way, it seems he was "unarmed". When it comes to police shootings of people like Mike Brown, "unarmed" is used to argue that the use of lethal force was unjustified. Why the difference?

 

[Derec]

I find it quite telling that certain people are on here bringing up the marijuana in an innocent man's apartment or car or body as a soft justification for police shootings, but try to downplay the significance of a rape in a self defense against a credible threat.

I never said that marijuana justified the Bothan shooting. You are misrepresenting what I said.

I think she went over the line dragging his corpse behind her car, and mutilating his body. Perhaps a few years in jail will help her understand the inappropriateness of her actions.

I would go even further and say her actions after the killing call in question her account of the killing and the alleged rape.

But I know some folks who CERTAINLY got off too easy: the cops who murdered people out of their own craven fear. So, where has your outrage been for THEIR light treatment by those tasked with upholding the law?

When a police officer is attacked, he has as much a right to self defense as anybody else. Note that in several cases, cops got long prison sentenced for killing people. For example Michael Slager in North Charleston. Or Van Dyke in Chicago. But the Left wants any police officer who kills a black criminal to go to prison, and that's nonsense.

Are you not going to believe her, when you clearly believe cops who provided the exact same level of "it happened because said so" Proof, even in the face of contradicting witness testimony?

Wilson did not drag Michael Brown's body behind his SUV like he's some sort of Hamas member ...
Also, evidence supported his case.

Am I going to ever see you say "If she was raped, she had every right to use lethal force in direct response to a credible and immediate threat, from the same person as raped her before, that he would rape her and her child"? And maybe we can let it die there?

Self-defense is fine. Killing somebody out of revenge because they raped you before is not.

 

[Jarhyn]

On what factual basis do you make the claim?

It says so in the article. She is eligible for parole as soon as 2020. Wanna bet she'll get out on the first try? Say $20?

According to the cited article, there seemed to be no doubt that the victim was a rapist. Are you claiming one cannot kill to prevent being raped?

Use of deadly force for self-defense is allowed. But self-defense cannot use more than the level of force which is reasonable. Also, hiding the body suggests she had something to hide. Why not call the police and tell them she was attacked if she was? Was she afraid of police processing the scene for evidence?


By the way, it seems he was "unarmed". When it comes to police shootings of people like Mike Brown, "unarmed" is used to argue that the use of lethal force was unjustified. Why the difference?

Because for the first few days after a normal human being is raped, possibly for the first few years, most victims experience an understandable tendency to fantasize about gutting their rapist and dragging them behind a car. And when you are experiencing that level of revenge fantasy, and have your child threatened by the same person, and have immediate access to lethal force, reason tends to go out the window. Personally, I would have argued temporary insanity. When the adrenaline or rage wears off, though, it can be too late to walk it back. Certainly after she went in for a penny of rage killing, she may have felt in for the pound

 

[Jarhyn]

I never said that marijuana justified the Bothan shooting. You are misrepresenting what I said.


I would go even further and say her actions after the killing call in question her account of the killing and the alleged rape.

But I know some folks who CERTAINLY got off too easy: the cops who murdered people out of their own craven fear. So, where has your outrage been for THEIR light treatment by those tasked with upholding the law?

When a police officer is attacked, he has as much a right to self defense as anybody else. Note that in several cases, cops got long prison sentenced for killing people. For example Michael Slager in North Charleston. Or Van Dyke in Chicago. But the Left wants any police officer who kills a black criminal to go to prison, and that's nonsense.

Are you not going to believe her, when you clearly believe cops who provided the exact same level of "it happened because said so" Proof, even in the face of contradicting witness testimony?

Wilson did not drag Michael Brown's body behind his SUV like he's some sort of Hamas member ...
Also, evidence supported his case.

Am I going to ever see you say "If she was raped, she had every right to use lethal force in direct response to a credible and immediate threat, from the same person as raped her before, that he would rape her and her child"? And maybe we can let it die there?

Self-defense is fine. Killing somebody out of revenge because they raped you before is not.

No, you are misrepresenting what I said. You used it as SOFT justification, a tactic of dissembly which involves putting forward a fact into a discussion without saying it is a strict justification, but in a way that implies that the fact pertains to the shooting as an ameliorating factor for the cop, as if there were hidden behavior that explains the events, but which is not actually in evidence. In short, as a justification.

As to your excuse for police officers, I do not accept that a police officer has an equal right to self defense. In fact, I believe the only time a police officer has a right to shoot someone with a gun, to take lethal action, is immediately after being a direct witness to a murder, or in situations where a positively identified murderer is being approached. In short, unless a cop has seen the person USE their gun, they shouldn't be gunning them down.

As to dragging behind a car, you haven't been raped, or severely violated, by anyone at least so far as I can tell. I doubt you understand the mental state of someone who has been, the kinds of lingering thoughts about what you could do different or what to do if they make another attempt. She most certainly has; I've had fantasies like the one she lived out. Personally, I see this kind of response as a perfectly normal human reaction to her situation. The fact that you don't is a resounding condemnation of your abilities at empathy.

As it is, she killed him after an immediate and credible threat against herself and her child.

 

[Rhea]

Forget the nominal "9 years". She will be able to get out in 2020, because she is a woman.

On what factual basis do you make the claim?

That's entirely too light a punishment. Especially since her victim is dead and cannot contradict any of her self-serving claims.

According to the cited article, there seemed to be no doubt that the victim was a rapist. Are you claiming one cannot kill to prevent being raped?

I heard he had some skittles and grape soda. So now his death is justified and she should get no jail time at all.

Why not call the police and tell them she was attacked if she was? Was she afraid of police processing the scene for evidence?

Maybe she has prior experience with a court system that doesn't care about her safety. Maybe she has read about all the men who have DV charges against them not taken seriously who later murder their victims. Maybe he SAID, "I will always come back, you will never ever be safe from me, nor your daughter," and maybe she knows that's true because the police will just let him go. Maybe she knows the police will badger her and bully her to drop the charges so they can get a better record, and that her entire life will be libeled and slandered and her daughter's future destroyed.

Maybe she has read your comments online and knows she has to take charge of her own safety.

 

[Jarhyn]

On what factual basis do you make the claim?
According to the cited article, there seemed to be no doubt that the victim was a rapist. Are you claiming one cannot kill to prevent being raped?

I heard he had some skittles and grape soda. So now his death is justified and she should get no jail time at all.

Why not call the police and tell them she was attacked if she was? Was she afraid of police processing the scene for evidence?

Maybe she has prior experience with a court system that doesn't care about her safety. Maybe she has read about all the men who have DV charges against them not taken seriously who later murder their victims. Maybe he SAID, "I will always come back, you will never ever be safe from me, nor your daughter," and maybe she knows that's true because the police will just let him go. Maybe she knows the police will badger her and bully her to drop the charges so they can get a better record, and that her entire life will be libeled and slandered and her daughter's future destroyed.

Maybe she has read your comments online and knows she has to take charge of her own safety.

While yes, this is 100% justification for taking it into he r own hands, I'm still going to say that if it wasn't her justification, she would still have been within the bounds of normal human non-criminal mindset to have acted on a revenge fantasy immediately after the revenge-inducing event, when threatened by the same person that they would do it again. "I'm going to do this thing again that you already think justifies killing me and dragging me behind a car, AND WORSE!" Sounds like clear consent to have that revenge brought.

 

[bilby]

Forget the nominal "9 years". She will be able to get out in 2020, because she is a woman.
That's entirely too light a punishment. Especially since her victim is dead and cannot contradict any of her self-serving claims.

She will be out in 2020 because she has been in prison on remand since 2015, and Queensland law always takes into account time already served, and always provides for eligibility of parole at the half-way point in a custodial sentence, for prisoners who have a record of good conduct while in jail.

Her gender is completely irrelevant to these facts.

Her 'victim', by the way, was guilty of nine armed bank robberies (and two car thefts) back in 1990. He was clearly a pillar of the community who will be sadly missed.