Woman Sentenced To Nine Years For Killing Rapist

[ZiprHead]

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

Funny how Derec missed that part. He's usually so good at getting into the background of victims.

 

[bilby]

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.

There is no such thing as a 'plea deal' in Australian law. That's a uniquely American travesty of justice.

I am wondering why you feel qualified to even have an opinion on what sentence might be appropriate, given your obvious lack of knowledge of the legal system under which she was convicted.

 

[laughing dog]

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.

Thank you Captain Obvious. But if you add in the part that you conveniently omitted in your response, you can see why it is reasonable to think the claim is that she is lying.

 

[laughing dog]

On what factual basis do you make the claim?

It says so in the article. She is eligible for parole as soon as 2020.

You claimed she would get out in 2020 because she was a woman. The article did not say that.

 

[laughing dog]

There are reasons to think it may be false:
- it is self-serving.

Yet, you never say that about a police officer's account of a killing. You are not fooling anyone.

- she failed to report the killing, electing instead to hide the body. That raises legitimate suspicions and skepticism of anything she says.

Only if she lied about.

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..

You just admitted you called women who claimed rape were liars. I did not say every woman. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

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.

My point was your double standard.

And, your double standard extends to refraining from smearing the victim in this case while gleefully doing so whenever the victim is a "thug".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we don't have the whole story here.

60+ stab wounds basically says she kept on long after it was obvious he couldn't resist, but I don't think either that or improper disposal of a corpse would draw 9 years.

However, her disposal of the corpse rather than simply calling the police strongly suggests there's something else going on, as does the sentence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What if the rapist had been a black man? How would any of us have reacted?

 

[Toni]

I think we don't have the whole story here.

60+ stab wounds basically says she kept on long after it was obvious he couldn't resist, but I don't think either that or improper disposal of a corpse would draw 9 years.

However, her disposal of the corpse rather than simply calling the police strongly suggests there's something else going on, as does the sentence.

You mean something else like the trauma of a rape? Of having her home invaded by the rapist who threatened to rape her again—-and her child? The trauma of stabbing to death her attacker? Who had a long criminal history?

She pled guilty to manslaughter. Possibly to avoid a harsher charge—but I am not certain of the legal system in Australia. Her sentence seems in keeping with what someone might get in the US for such a conviction.

 

[Toni]

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.

She was in great and justifiable fear for herself and for her child. I can well imagine that she was not particularly in control of her emotions as one might be able to be sitting behind a computer screen in the safety of one's own home rather than being confronted by her rapist who was attempting to extort rape from her again as well as harm her child.

I realize you cannot relate. But really, Derec. You are beyond the pale.

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.

Well, he laid a trap for the burglars, who did not rape him nor threaten his child. Here's what actually happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_David_Smith_killings

Incident
On November 22, 2012, Kifer and Brady broke into Smith's home. Video surveillance captured the teens casing the property prior to the break-in.[10] By his own account to police, Smith was in the basement when he shot Brady twice at the top of the basement stairs, and once in the face fatally after he fell to the bottom of the stairs. Minutes later when Kifer entered the basement, he shot her at the top of the stairs. Wounded, she fell down the stairs, and after Smith's rifle jammed, he shot her multiple times in the chest with a 22-caliber revolver, dragged her across the floor to set her beside the body of her cousin, and then shot her fatally under the chin.[1]

Audio and video of the events were recorded by Smith's security system. [11][12]

Investigation
The deaths were not immediately reported to police. Smith waited until the next day to notify police of the shootings, claiming he didn't want to bother the police on Thanksgiving.[8][13] Morrison County Sheriff Michel Wetzel has acknowledged that Brady and Kifer were there to burglarize Smith's residence.[6] Brady's sister claimed Brady stole drugs from her home August 28 in a case that was still under investigation.[7] Evidence recovered from the car driven by Brady was linked to a burglary of the residence of a retired teacher the night before he and Kifer were killed by Byron Smith.[14]

Smith's statements to police describe delivering killing shots to the heads of both victims after he had shot them on the stairs and they had fallen to the basement floor wounded.[15][16] In his statement, Smith said that Kifer had let out a short laugh after she fell down the stairs, saying "If you're trying to shoot somebody and they laugh at you, you go again." The audiotape did not record Kifer laughing; instead she cries "Oh my God!" in fear. In police interviews Smith acknowledged "firing more shots than I needed to" and that he fired "a good clean finishing shot" into Kifer's head.[5]

He saw the burglars approach and instead of calling the police, he laid in wait. This demonstrates premeditation. Moreover, he shot both individuals after they were already incapacitated. Although it is likely that they had previously burgled his home, he had not been assaulted by either of his victims nor by anyone else.

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

The jury returned the verdict, Derec, after hearing testimony. She served her sentence at least partially in a mental health facility. She also thinks there wasn't enough time to pay for her crime.

It's so interesting to me that you and Loren and other posters so vehemently defended George Zimmerman who killed an unarmed 16 year old who was walking home from a convenience store. Zimmerman had had other run ins with the law before and since he was exonerated.

Why do you have so much trouble with a woman defending herself, her home, her child from someone who attacked her and was threatening her and her child again---yet have zero problem with a white-ish man killing an unarmed black teenager who had not harmed him, who had not broken into his home, who was trying to get back to his own home? The woman in Australia was convicted of manslaughter for killing an intruder who was threatening her and her child, who had already raped her and was threatening to do so again.

Zimmerman got nothing except a lot of fame.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Actually, as I reconsider, death is an acceptable means of stopping a rape, as per Colorado law. You can legally shoot someone to stop a rape.
However, a penalty of death is not used to punish rape. Odd, actually.

Why do you think that that is odd?

It seems usual to me. In fact, in places where there is no death penalty (most countries), killing in self-defense or in the defense of others is accepted, under some circumstances.
In American states where the death penalty exists, I'm pretty sure not only rape but other non-capital crimes allow a person to use lethal force in self-defense or in the defense of others. For example, kidnapping. I don't think people have a legal obligation to allow themselves to be kidnapped if the can only stop that without a huge risk is by shooting and killing the kidnapper.

 

[fast]

Dragging a corpse -- definitely overkill -- highly inappropriate -- I went back and forth on this. One week jail time, I thought about, but no, instead of dragging him and dropping him off at the police station, she went further, so I'm recommending a sentence of two weeks jail time.

Stabbing in the heart -- Bam! You go girl! Stop what the police didn't (twice!)

Stabbing to the penis --this one depends on the country. In the US, anything that remotely pertains to a sex organ is automatically and ridiculously considered a sex crime. Hell, you can get into a bar fight and shoot someone dead, drag them with a car and rope, and it's just improper, but if the pants rip off exposing genitalia, you're now a sexual predator deserving of being on the sex offender registry for 22 consecutive life terms or some shit. So, if the US, the sentence should be probably a couple weeks shy of 9 years.

Add it all up, that's nine years. Conclusion, someone is lying about what country this crime took place in.

Protecting child from the future harm -- this is very difficult. While I can appreciate the mindset of only using deadly force for an immenent or current attack, this bar should be lowered for previous victims of returning attackers. If someone I recognize comes to hurt me and I get the upper hand, I may not shoot the assailant in the back, but if the police are aware that I chose to not kill the victim and the police fail to prevent it from happening again, then if the same intruder tries again and I get the upper hand again, then all this "I should of called the police" bullshit needs to be muzzled.

ITS WRONG not to take the law into ones own hands after the police have failed while it was in theirs. So, on the killing to protect child, 2 days in jail for overworking the coroner with having to count all those stab wounds.

PS; was there any word about skin exposure after his road trip? Even after only a mile, I'd expect her to come up on additional sex charge crimes against her. No wait, that's just the US. Never mind.

 

[ruby sparks]

What an awful case.

On a temporarily whimsical note, this woman is lucky she's not a bear. Apparently (according to bear.org) 70% of human fatalities from bear attacks are because the mother is protecting her offspring from a perceived threat, so golden rule number one: never threaten a mother with attacking her child unless you have lots of round-the-clock bodyguards. I said she's lucky not to be a mother bear because what happens after someone gets killed by a bear is the authorities go find and shoot the bear (or a bear at least).

On a more serious note, actually, 9 years (plus 18 months for interfering with the body) seems reasonable to me, given that she'll be eligible for parole in 2 years (having I think already served 3 years in custody).

Assuming he did rape her and threatened to rape her again or her daughter (something you arguably just should not threaten to do, to a mother) I would have very little sympathy for him, other than that I'm squeamish about pain and blood and probably wouldn't wish death by stabbing on anyone. But, part of me, on reading that just before (or while) stabbing him she was yelling, 'you don't rape me', can't help...ashamed to admit it...silently cheering. Another part realises that one can't actually condone such things.

There is, actually, very little detail on or around the story and related facts. I read that they were both meth addicts, that she had a history of having been sexually abused and that he had a bad criminal record.

 

[Toni]

Actually, as I reconsider, death is an acceptable means of stopping a rape, as per Colorado law. You can legally shoot someone to stop a rape.
However, a penalty of death is not used to punish rape. Odd, actually.

Why do you think that that is odd?

It seems usual to me. In fact, in places where there is no death penalty (most countries), killing in self-defense or in the defense of others is accepted, under some circumstances.
In American states where the death penalty exists, I'm pretty sure not only rape but other non-capital crimes allow a person to use lethal force in self-defense or in the defense of others. For example, kidnapping. I don't think people have a legal obligation to allow themselves to be kidnapped if the can only stop that without a huge risk is by shooting and killing the kidnapper.

The events in this tread happened in Australia.

However, most posters here are from the US where a number of states have 'stand your ground' laws meaning that it is legal to shoot someone to death if they break into your house and you are 'afraid.' Sometimes has been successfully applied to your yard and/or your vehicle or even parking spot. And some of the posters here are fine with that. More than fine. Heck, several are fine if you stalk an unarmed black teenager and he startles you after giving you the slip if you shoot him while you are both in the common area of the apartment complex where you both live and where you have appointed yourself neighborhood cop.

The posters here who are questioning this woman's actions and saying she got off light for killing the criminal who had invaded her home, had raped her a couple of days prior and was threatening to rape her and/or her child during this home invasion.

There is a huge disconnect here and it's pretty much gender. Some men just don't like the idea of women getting angry or defending themselves if it involves seriously injuring or killing their assailant. Of course, if they don't successfully fight of their attacker, it's only morning after regrets/drunken sex that she just happened to be too drunk to walk, vomited all over herself and maybe passed out but hey! he had a couple of drinks, too!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think we don't have the whole story here.

60+ stab wounds basically says she kept on long after it was obvious he couldn't resist, but I don't think either that or improper disposal of a corpse would draw 9 years.

However, her disposal of the corpse rather than simply calling the police strongly suggests there's something else going on, as does the sentence.

You mean something else like the trauma of a rape? Of having her home invaded by the rapist who threatened to rape her again—-and her child? The trauma of stabbing to death her attacker? Who had a long criminal history?

She pled guilty to manslaughter. Possibly to avoid a harsher charge—but I am not certain of the legal system in Australia. Her sentence seems in keeping with what someone might get in the US for such a conviction.

No, I'm saying her sentence is awfully high for what she supposedly did. Thus I think she did more.

 

[Trausti]

Dragging a corpse? Pfft.

 

[bilby]

I think we don't have the whole story here.

60+ stab wounds basically says she kept on long after it was obvious he couldn't resist, but I don't think either that or improper disposal of a corpse would draw 9 years.

However, her disposal of the corpse rather than simply calling the police strongly suggests there's something else going on, as does the sentence.

You mean something else like the trauma of a rape? Of having her home invaded by the rapist who threatened to rape her again—-and her child? The trauma of stabbing to death her attacker? Who had a long criminal history?

She pled guilty to manslaughter. Possibly to avoid a harsher charge—but I am not certain of the legal system in Australia. Her sentence seems in keeping with what someone might get in the US for such a conviction.

No, I'm saying her sentence is awfully high for what she supposedly did. Thus I think she did more.

But you are completely unqualified to have an opinion on Queensland law in general, and on this case in particular, so why should anyone care what you "think"?

There's no such thing as a plea deal in Australian law.

She made a late guilty plea. To a charge of manslaughter. The sentence is completely conversant with these basic facts.

There will be no more public details, unless someone chooses to risk a charge of contempt of court (for no good reason). But nothing about the sentence is out of step with other sentences in Queensland for manslaughter offences to which a late guilty plea is made.