Sexual assault victims murdering their attackers

[Person012345]

It's also a little worrying that so many suspected the abuse and did nothing.

People are a bunch of fucking shitstains, that's not really anything new.

[Samuraikoku]

The chap tells us a great deal. Either we get quotes directly - from either the Police OR the Court in question,or he summarizes,and so on and so forth, based on what he is told. And we know quite well what to infer.

Just as anyone who hears that' a man is assisting the Police with their inquiries' knows that it refers to a suspect in custody. We all know the code. Years of practise. That's how we know.

Sorry, but "we all know the code" isn't an answer I can take seriously.

[Selsada]

This is assassination with aggravating circonstances, she should be in prison for that.

[Norsklow]

The chap tells us a great deal. Either we get quotes directly - from either the Police OR the Court in question,or he summarizes,and so on and so forth, based on what he is told. And we know quite well what to infer.

Just as anyone who hears that' a man is assisting the Police with their inquiries' knows that it refers to a suspect in custody. We all know the code. Years of practise. That's how we know.

Sorry, but "we all know the code" isn't an answer I can take seriously.

What you take seriously is a matter of complete irrelevance.
And your apologies are refused.

[Person012345]

Sorry, but "we all know the code" isn't an answer I can take seriously.

What you take seriously is a matter of complete irrelevance.
And your apologies are refused.

No, what you think "we all know" is a matter of complete irrelevance.

[Samuraikoku]

What you take seriously is a matter of complete irrelevance.
And your apologies are refused.

Such an unpleasant answer, but sadly it does not serve you any well as a rebuttal to my point.

No further use arguing.

[Blazedtown]

And shepherds we shall be, for thee my Lord for thee, power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command. We shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

[Zanzibarnia]

And shepherds we shall be, for thee my Lord for thee, power hath descended forth from thy hand, that our feet may swiftly carry out thy command. We shall flow a river forth to thee, and teeming with souls shall it ever be. In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti.

"WYATT FUCKIN' EARP!"

[Des-Bal]

There isn't enough information given. At what point was his back turned allowing her to shoot him? If it was after the act then this was not self-defense. Even if it was totally and unequivocally self-defense the fact she dismembered the body casts that in a different light and I really can't conceive any circumstance that would change my opinion that she should be imprisoned.

[Atollus]

There isn't enough information given. At what point was his back turned allowing her to shoot him? If it was after the act then this was not self-defense. Even if it was totally and unequivocally self-defense the fact she dismembered the body casts that in a different light and I really can't conceive any circumstance that would change my opinion that she should be imprisoned.

From the article: The girl told police she had to do what her stepfather had ordered when he was alive because "I was his". Asked what would have happened if she had not shot him, she said: "I probably would have killed myself ... 'cos I couldn't live the way I was."

The girl in question was in such a broken state of mind that she believed her only options were killing her attacker or killing herself. She chose to live. Admittedly there are people who would not take a life to save themselves, but I don't see how anyone can blame her for valuing her own life over that of her tormentor.

Its obvious she was not in her right mind. Years of abuse will do that. She had every reason to believe the authorities would punish her for what was a justifiable homicide. So she tried to hide the evidence. Really, its not very complicated.

[Person012345]

There isn't enough information given. At what point was his back turned allowing her to shoot him? If it was after the act then this was not self-defense. Even if it was totally and unequivocally self-defense the fact she dismembered the body casts that in a different light and I really can't conceive any circumstance that would change my opinion that she should be imprisoned.

I don't gather that it was self defence in terms of immediate harm (although what makes you think he wouldn't just have done it again in the future, since he'd already done it many times?

Regardless, who fucking cares. I shed no tears for the death of a sexual abuser, assuming that he actually is one (it seems likely if the prosecutors dropped the case).

[Des-Bal]

There isn't enough information given. At what point was his back turned allowing her to shoot him? If it was after the act then this was not self-defense. Even if it was totally and unequivocally self-defense the fact she dismembered the body casts that in a different light and I really can't conceive any circumstance that would change my opinion that she should be imprisoned.

From the article: The girl told police she had to do what her stepfather had ordered when he was alive because "I was his". Asked what would have happened if she had not shot him, she said: "I probably would have killed myself ... 'cos I couldn't live the way I was."

The girl in question was in such a broken state of mind that she believed her only options were killing her attacker or killing herself. She chose to live. Admittedly there are people who would not take a life to save themselves, but I don't see how anyone can blame her for valuing her own life over that of her tormentor.

Its obvious she was not in her right mind. Years of abuse will do that. She had every reason to believe the authorities would punish her for what was a justifiable homicide. So she tried to hide the evidence. Really, its not very complicated.

Depending on what led to him turning around there was no immediate threat to her life. That invalidates self-defense, whether or not she believed she had no alternative is something a jury should interpret. The only reason anyone hides evidence from the police is because they think they'll be punished.

[Person012345]

Depending on what led to him turning around there was no immediate threat to her life. That invalidates self-defense, whether or not she believed she had no alternative is something a jury should interpret. The only reason anyone hides evidence from the police is because they think they'll be punished.

You realise the reason prosecutors dropped the case is most likely to do with the fact that a jury is unlikely to side with the abuser anyway right?

[Des-Bal]

You realise the reason prosecutors dropped the case is most likely to do with the fact that a jury is unlikely to side with the abuser anyway right?

Yes I do realize that unsympathetic victims are often denied justice.

[Blazedtown]

You realise the reason prosecutors dropped the case is most likely to do with the fact that a jury is unlikely to side with the abuser anyway right?

Yes I do realize that unsympathetic victims are often denied justice.

No jury in America will convict her, because most people disagree with you.

[Ifreann]

Yes I do realize that unsympathetic victims are often denied justice.

No jury in America will convict her, because most people disagree with you.

No jury in America will convict her because American courts don't have jurisdiction in Australia.

[Blazedtown]

No jury in America will convict her, because most people disagree with you.

No jury in America will convict her because American courts don't have jurisdiction in Australia.

Wow, do I feel stupid. I'll just let myself out.

[Atollus]

Depending on what led to him turning around there was no immediate threat to her life.

Irrelevant. He had abused her before, he was likely to abuse her again. If he'd assaulted her at gun point once, it is logical to assume he would do so again. The threat to her life was not immediate, it was continuous. She had every right to defend herself.

That invalidates self-defense, whether or not she believed she had no alternative is something a jury should interpret.

Except it will never go to jury, because the evidence for conviction was too insufficient.

The only reason anyone hides evidence from the police is because they think they'll be punished.

For someone who is use to others turning a blind eye to what is happening to them, assuming you are alone in a cold cruel world that defends those who harm you is a reasonable conclusion. She believed she would be punished for defending herself. So she acted the only way she believed she could in order to survive and remain free from prison.

[Des-Bal]

Depending on what led to him turning around there was no immediate threat to her life.

Irrelevant. He had abused her before, he was likely to abuse her again. If he'd assaulted her at gun point once, it is logical to assume he would do so again. The threat to her life was not immediate, it was continuous. She had every right to defend herself.

That invalidates self-defense, whether or not she believed she had no alternative is something a jury should interpret.

Except it will never go to jury, because the evidence for conviction was too insufficient.

The only reason anyone hides evidence from the police is because they think they'll be punished.

For someone who is use to others turning a blind eye to what is happening to them, assuming you are alone in a cold cruel world that defends those who harm you is a reasonable conclusion. She believed she would be punished for defending herself. So she acted the only way she believed she could in order to survive and remain free from prison.

Attempting to defend yourself after an altercation has ended is not self-defense. After she was no longer in danger she had numerous options none of which required shooting or dismembering anybody.

The evidence is that she shot him in the head, chopped his body up, and confessed.

So regardless of whether or not it was justifiable homicide her intention was to commit a crime.

[The Reasonable]

I find it ironic that sometimes the same people who agree that the charges should be dropped because the abuser was receiving his due justice are ones that oppose capital punishment...just saying.

[Atollus]

Attempting to defend yourself after an altercation has ended is not self-defense. After she was no longer in danger she had numerous options none of which required shooting or dismembering anybody.

She was always in danger, the threat to her life and body was continuous. What part of that don't you understand?

The evidence is that she shot him in the head, chopped his body up, and confessed.

Your point?

So regardless of whether or not it was justifiable homicide her intention was to commit a crime.

I believe you have that reversed. Whether or not she intended to commit a crime, she defended herself from potentially fatal harm. Therefore the homicide was justifiable. Given her state of mind I would even say praiseworthy.

[Des-Bal]

She was always in danger, the threat to her life and body was continuous. What part of that don't you understand?


Your point?


I believe you have that reversed. Whether or not she intended to commit a crime, she defended herself from potentially fatal harm. Therefore the homicide was justifiable. Given her state of mind I would even say praiseworthy.

The part where it's bullshit.



"...it will never go to jury, because the evidence for conviction was too insufficient."
The evidence was beyond sufficient, if she had done it in front of the judge it would have made no difference to the amount of evidence.

According to you the reason she hid the body is because she thought she would have been punished, IE because she had committed a crime. So regardless of whether it was justifiable or not she was actively trying to commit a crime.

[Greed and Death]

no jury in the world would convict her, in a civilized country.

Even if she failed to technically meet the definition of self defense.

[Atollus]

The part where it's bullshit.

How so? You fail to present your logic.

According to you the reason she hid the body is because she thought she would have been punished, IE because she had committed a crime. So regardless of whether it was justifiable or not she was actively trying to commit a crime.

No. She committed no crime. But in her damaged state of mind she believe that society would consider her a criminal regardless. As a result she attempted to hide the body.

[Greed and Death]

Attempting to defend yourself after an altercation has ended is not self-defense. After she was no longer in danger she had numerous options none of which required shooting or dismembering anybody.

She was always in danger, the threat to her life and body was continuous. What part of that don't you understand?

For self defense to technically be valid the threat must be imminent.
If the threat is not imminent you go to the police.

Someone with their back turned to you by definition does not pose an imminent threat.

The Zimmerman case makes a better case for self defense.