She shot him in the back with a shotgun, and let him bleed out.

[Neil Lisst]

I find it annoying as hell that we have such a double standard in this country.

Imagine it was the father who shot the wife in the back, let her bleed to death, while running with the kids. Wendy What's Her Face would be on every network wailing about this evil man, but instead we have all these issues which ponder whether she might have had a good reason.

THERE AIN'T NO GOOD REASON!!

[MadMaddie]

1. Oooh..I thought she shot him with a handgun....a shotgun

in the back....

You are right post partem or not she ambushed him...Shotguns leave nasty gaping holes....

[Neil Lisst]

It was up close with bird shot, and they said he bled for a while

before dying.

I don't know what he might have done, but I don't believe in capital punishment even when it's done by the justice system.

[atreides1]

2. Maybe Not To You

But good or bad is in the mind of the person that pulled the trigger!!!

When the police shoot an unarmed man who presents no threat, is that good or bad?

Here in Alexandria Virginia, the prosecutor decided that it was a good shoot, because he will not file criminal charges against the officer, even though the department is still investigating the
shooting!!!

[Neil Lisst]

3. there's never a good reason to shoot your spouse in the back

sorry, but that doesn't play

You get in the car and you leave.

[niyad]

6. perhaps not, but your callous and easy "get in the car and leave" may

not be that easy for a long-time victim of domestic violence (no, I don't know that this woman was, but this was in reference to your comment) have you done any research into the psychology of battered women? it is very hard for those with no experience in the field to just blithely assume that the woman can just up and leave.

[Neil Lisst]

10. exactly the kind of excusing I'm talking about

Yes, I know all about spousal abuse and battered wife syndrome.

I also know that it's the most overused defense of women killing their SO or husband.

Why? Because too many are too willing to believe the woman needs protection and probably was justified in some fashion.

I'll say it again. No, no justification for killing your spouse. Leave.

[Clark2008]

29. It might be 'overused' as you put it because it's the truth

I hardly think some women can just "leave." With what money? Who's going to feed the kids?

Does it justify killing her spouse? Yes, if he's beating her - if he continues, eventually he WILL kill her. It's self defense.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. Absolutely not.

"With what money" is not a viable defence for committing murder. I am prepared to regard the fact that a woman (or a man) was being prevented from leaving by force, or by sufficiently serious threat of force, as a mitigating factor to premeditated murder, and self defence in the face of force is of cause a perfectly good all-out defence, but "I couldn't afford to leave them" is entirely irrelevant.

[Neil Lisst]

78. No, it's overused because it has a ready audience who believe it

Like Fox News viewers believe Bush.

It is the woman's choice is to walk away with the kids to the nearest police station, relative, church, friend, charity, or women's center.

Or to kill, and if she kills, she's a murderer who chose that instead of the culturally and legally acceptable ways to deal with this problem.

There is zero evidence that this preacher was abusing her, but by the time it gets to trial, he'll be an ogre whether he was or not.

Maybe she's just a sorry, no good person who kills instead of dealing rationally with problems.

I take comfort in knowing all you folks who so quickly excuse the woman's conduct would be stricken from the jury panel for cause during voir dire.

[WinkyDink]

86. "[O]verused"? Meaning what? "Fabricated"? Says you and what studies?

And it seems YOU have already decided the husband was NOT abusive. Or do you somehow believe you've read the entire reality in the newspaper?

[Neil Lisst]

92. Overused, meaning it's overused.

I don't know if he was abusive or not. I know he was shot in the back at close range and left to die.

Maybe in your world that can be justified, but if so, you're making excuses for a cold-blooded murderer who took the law into her own hands, at a minimum.

[REP]

96. Please Document Your Assertion

If you merely go on about how terrible the shooting was, I'll understand that you cannot back you what you claim to be true, and are posting out of emotion.

[Neil Lisst]

98. Please read the thread

I'm not going to try to satisfy your need to require me to repeat everything posted, and I'm certainly not going to spend time trying to convince you to see it my way. I don't care to persuade you one way or another, and I sure don't want to engage in some long, pointless discussion with a detractor.

Instead of asking me to do your research and understanding for you, perhaps you could consider looking it up yourself, AFTER you read the thread.

I don't intend to educate you on the criminal justice system, but if you want to educate yourself, there are plenty of materials - some referenced in this thread - that will help you.

If you don't, I'll know you are just "posting out of emotion," as you put it.

[REP]

110. I Did Read The Thread; No Documentation of Your Assertion

I guess you just answered my question - you "feeeeeel" women are offing their husbands by the truckloads just for the hell of it and are 'getting off' with light sentences because they were abused. Except, of course, for the majority of women who don't and either get LWOP or the death penalty. Whereas most men who kill their female partners (and men are far more likely to kill their partners than a woman is) do an average of 7 years.

[Neil Lisst]

114. I feel exactly as I've stated in numerous posts.

What is the compulsion of some DUers to invent straw men? Is that your only arguing tool? It seems to be.

[OzarkDem]

53. Isn't it true

that battered spouses are most in danger at the time they are trying to leave their spouse? Isn't that when they're most likely to be killed?

[Neil Lisst]

79. unless he's there 24/7, and keeps her locked in ...

... she can leave when he is not there.

Battered spouses are a problem, but we have ways to deal with that, and killing the alleged abuser is not one of them, thank God.

[OzarkDem]

120. Sometimes they are there 24/7

Its common for abusive spouses to stalk their wives when they try to leave, and frequently do them harm or kill them. That's why they have domestic violence shelters for women - to hide them.

[Neil Lisst]

121. That wouldn't apply here.

She got the gun, went to his office, and shot him while his back was turned.

Perhaps more importantly, there have been repeated reports that no one who knew them had a clue why she did it.

Certainly there are men who attempt to control every minute of their SO's life. Nothing about this case suggests that was true.

edited to change title to correct after following post

[Bunny]

124. He was at his office?

Are you sure about that?

<snip>
Matthew Winkler was found dead in a bedroom at the couple's home in Selmer after church members went looking for him because he did not appear for a service. The parsonage is about two miles from the church in a quiet, heavily wooded neighborhood.
<snip>

http://us.cnn.com/2006/US/03/25/pastor.slain.ap/

[Neil Lisst]

125. Thanks for the heads up.

in his office.

Thanks for the heads up. That makes catching him in the act more likely, but I still can't see Mom shooting dad while a kid is in the room, so catching him in the act, if it happened, would likely have occurred earlier.

I still have a hard time believing any parent would see killing the other parent as a smart thing to do. Now the kids may grow up without either parent, and have to live with knowing their mom killed their dad. If he was abusing a child, that child will carry the burden of his death and the family disintegration.

In my view, the only chance she has of walking is if he was sexually abusing the kids, and she has absolute proof, such as photos or physical damage to the privates of the kid or kids, corroborated by the kids.

If she has all that, she might be able to walk under temporary insanity. In that event, the time line will be very important.

Example one:
She sees him abusing one of the kids, kills him immediately. BEST chance to walk.

Example two:
She doesn't see him abuse the kids, but one tells her he did, she confronts him, he threatens her, she kills him immediately. Second best chance to walk.

Example three:
She finds kiddie porn on the computer, but no evidence of abuse of their kids, she confronts him, he threatens her, she gets a gun and shoots him immediately. Third best chance to walk.

Example four:
She suspects he's abusing the kids. He denies it. There is no forensic evidence proving abuse. She thinks about for a few days, then kills him because she's afraid no one will believe her. No chance to walk.

If she has either good evidence of his abusing the kids or having kiddie porn, AND she killed him ASAP, she might walk entirely.

But if she remains silent, or produces a defense without significant supporting circumstantial evidence, she gets convicted and goes away a long time.

She could end up pleading out, and I expect that is what will happen. They cannot let a spouse killer walk, though. If she walks, it won't be a deal, it will be jury nullification or a finding of either justifiable homicide or temporary insanity.

[jedicord]

8. Not to argue, but, I guess I will.

Unless you have been in an abusive relationship, don't make generalized statements like "just get in the car and leave". It's far more complicated than that.

I myself have been in an abusive relationship (but not so much so I wanted to shoot him). I did finally get out, but it took a whole lot of planning. You don't know who/what this guy was, or how much he may have threatened the wife, the children, her family, her friends. You also don't know how much she may have felt, rightly or wrongly, that it was all her fault he acted that way.

Also, it may not have been an abusive relationship, it could have been something else and she was royally pissed and he was walking away.

Just to say, you are making assumptions about something of which you truly know nothing.

[Neil Lisst]

11. that's one opinion, but not mine

Speaking of making assumptions about something of which you truly know nothing, that's exactly what you've done in your post.

You don't have any reason to believe she was abused or battered, but you're at the ready with her defense.

[jedicord]

17. I was not defending her, I was defending abused women

(and men) every where. I have no judgment at this point on what happened, because I know nothing but the fact she shot him in the back.

My point, and it isn't an opinion, is that one should never make a generalized assumption that it's easy for a person to get out of an abusive relationship.

Besides which, I also pointed out we don't even know if she WAS abused. That is another assumption people are making.

Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

93. my point is one should not excuse spouse homicide

Let's see a show of hands for those who think it's ok for men to kill abusive wives.

[sendero]

19. Complicated..

... yes, but justification for murder, no.

You make it sound like the "complications" outweigh the taking of someone's life. That's beyond ludicrous.

[jedicord]

22. Sorry y'all did not get my point. Here it is again.

My point is: It is way more complicated for an abused person to leave than just get in the car and drive off. That's what bothers me about what he said.

I have no idea and no judgment about this case. All I know is she shot him. Generalized judgment? That's horrendous. But without facts, I refuse to convict or acquit.

[sendero]

25. I think we get that..

... but my point is that it is never so complicated that you have the right to kill someone to make it easier.

Unless the guy was physically attacking someone, there is no way I would vote not guilty, no matter what kind of scum the dude was.

Someone very close to me was shot by her ex boyfriend. She almost died. The defense painted her as the bad person because she'd dumped him for someone else. He got five years PROBATION. Never will I sit on a jury where someone gets probation for attempted murder.

[jedicord]

26. Mea Culpa, I was so stuck on MY point I missed yours.

Funny how personal experiences do that, huh?

The fear of what happened to your friend is what kept me in my abusive relationship for so long. I hope she is OK.

Peace.

[Neil Lisst]

94. you're right, it is hard for an abused person to leave

That is a given, and yet, millions manage to do it every year without killing their SO.

So are we to make allowances for the 1 of every 100,000 who kills?

[incapsulated]

99. Because we don't think much of men who beat their wives?

And are sympathetic to women who take these creeps out? Maybe.

Maybe the idea of a woman with a gun who is going to get payback frightens men on some level? Could be. I remember when women started using this as a defense. It wasn't met with much sympathy at the time. Same for children who killed abusive parents, not much sympathy at all.

The media focus on this because all the stats prove that it IS unusal for a woman to kill her spouse. Not so the other way around. The Justice Dept. statistics I posted downthread had women being killed by an "intimate" adding up to 33% of all female murders. Men being murdered by an intimate was 4%.

[Neil Lisst]

102. I don't think much of them either. Still doesn't justify murder.

And that is the point, not how sorry you think the men are or how much you think they deserve to be killed.

I suppose if you are an advocate of capital punishment, your position on this is at least consistent with executing prisoners.

[incapsulated]

104. No, but it makes it understandable

I can say murder is wrong, but fully understand the mental and emotional state that may lead to murder. And feeling trapped and abused is one of them.

Look, this is something that men can't really understand any more than white people can truly understand how people of color feel. Especially the anger. Women live all their lives with an awareness of potential danger, real physical danger, from men, including those that they are most intimate with. If I die by being murdered, there is a one in three chance that it will be at the hands of my husband, boyfriend or ex. And given the rarity of female spousal murder, or just any murder by women at all, we tend to look for what reason a woman would have to take such an unusual action. Since women are far more likely to be seriously physically abused, that is the sort of "trigger" that we look for, at first. Because the woman who just kills her husband out of pure evil, like for his insurance money, is not only rare but obviously does not fit the profile of this very violent and obvious murder, in this case. This was a crime of "passion" and we can only guess what brought it on, but she wasn't really looking to plot and get away with it, whatever the cause.

I'm not trying to make women all innocent victims. For instance, they are more likely to be the ones abusing their children. Violence is usually from the strong to the weak. When the "weaker" person lashes out, we have good reason to wonder if it is because they were being abused.

[Neil Lisst]

106. You make very good points, and I agree with them.

My point in this thread is how quickly many want to rationalize the murder of a husband by a wife, and how quickly he's assumed to have done something heinous.

It's a presumption of guilt on the deceased, and I never like that, since the person who benefits is the person who silenced forever the deceased.

[incapsulated]

107. Well, I agree with you in principle

A man is dead and we have no idea why she killed him, at this point. I was just trying to explain why there is a quick, and honestly in my case, almost instantaneous, thought to look for "a reason". It isn't "fair" but it isn't baseless, either. But she could just be nuts, plain and simple, we don't know.

[Neil Lisst]

109. she was a Church of Christ preacher's wife

That likely means she's lived a lifetime of rigidity, predating even her marriage to her husband. They married, they had three kids.

The world of her church is all black and white, no gray. They're fine with capital punishment and war. If you were being tried for a crime, you would not want a member of the Church of Christ on the jury, and certainly not a CoC preacher or his wife. They're extremely judgmental.

The first post I wrote on this topic (in another thread), I said that her best defensive position was that he was sexually molesting the kids, and he told her he'd kill her if she tried to do anything about it.

That's one possible line of defense.

Another would be physical abuse of a chronic nature.

Another would be emotional abuse of a chronic and oppressive nature.

But so far, there is not a hint of any of them.

If I had to venture a guess, I'd guess she shot him because he was having an affair.

[The Straight Story]

117. Maybe she was abusing him and he was trying to leave....

But no, we assume the guy is the problem.

I agree with you on people jumping on the bandwagon -that if a woman shoots a husband he was probably doing something that made him deserve it- is pretty crappy.

There is though this to consider:

I think the way many who see this case think domestic abuse for one simple reason: spouses generally just don't up and shoot the other one day. There is a trigger event - mental illness, abuse, insurance money, drug/alcohol.
Given he was a minister the drug/alcohol seems less likely. Insurance money would probably be planned out a little better. She seemed to have not been mentally ill from what people have said about them and their family.
Which leaves abuse - either of wife or daughters or both. Or, she was an abuser and he was trying to leave and she stopped him.

[Neil Lisst]

118. abuse of the kids is a logical and possible cause

which would give her the best possible defense, as I indicated elsewhere on the thread.

But if the only evidence is her word, that's a problem. If there is no corroborating physical or photographic evidence, it's a case of a dead man being unable to defend himself.

Even if that is the case, she probably has to cut a deal to avoid at least a 15 year exposure.

[The Straight Story]

126. Agree with that -

Don't do the crime if you can't do the crime or have enough evidence to keep outside the fence.

[donsu]

58. believe it - there are husbands that play with their wive's minds

just for the fun of it

the bushmilhousegang calls it black ops when they do it

[Neil Lisst]

76. oh, so now Gaslight justifies murder?

There are sorry men and sorry women, and they often find each other.

Neither has the right to kill the other, and excusing it away is really merely playing gender bias.

How would you feel if men defended such actions by saying "I was afraid of her, and this was my only way out"? Treating women like adults most of the time, but treating them like children who lost their way when they do something terrible, is frankly, extremely sexist. But it's part of the prevailing double standard whereby women are "victims" instead of responsible, equal adults, when they commit heinous crimes.

[WinkyDink]

87. I read "distraught over his job loss" as a man's excuse for slaying his

family and/or co-workers PLENTY of times.

Somehow unemployed women are never given the "distraught" "out".

[Neil Lisst]

95. Neither are the men. No matter how distraught they are ...

Like you said, it's an excuse, and it's no better than hers.

It's a really simple concept. You have no right to kill another person, and all the rationalizations in the world are just that.

People here who would never approve capital punishment defend it when a woman pulls the trigger on her spouse.

[radio4progressives]

66. apparently you have never experienced spousal abuse and imprisonment

I don't know what the actual facts are in this particular case..

but it isn't a stretch to imagine a severely abused woman who couldn't see any other way out.

[Neil Lisst]

75. that doesn't excuse it

I'm tired of hearing people justifying it when an occasional woman kills her husband or SO, not in self-defense, but in cold blood, and rationalize it away as "but he was a bastard and I was afraid of him."

We cannot as a society hand the murderous widow a crying towel and say "you poor thing!"

There are just as many evil, no good, sorry women as there are men. It's ridiculous to make excuses for the handful who kill their husbands because that's allegedly the only way out they can see. Sorry, not good enough. Go to jail where the other calculating murderers go.

You see, the problem is that just about every woman who kills her SO now claims she was abused, or that the kids were abused. Dead dad can't defend himself. It's a standard defense, and it's used in virtually every murder case where wife kills husband cold-blooded.

At the core of this is some very, very deep gender bias, that tries to excuse away excess behaviors by women because they're women. Oh that poor thing. Her husband was such a bastard! Let's give her a medal!

[WinkyDink]

88. Whty not save your anti-women rant until the trial?

[Neil Lisst]

91. Why don't you save your anti-man rant?

It's an important topic, and it deserves better than your petty insults.

Just because I find cold-blooded murder by women unacceptable doesn't make my comments an "anti-woman rant."

I would suggest the problem is your inability to consider the issue without having an anti-man bias.

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. Hey! Come look at the two headed pig!

If you people really like this kind of stuff, you can entertain yourself for hours at any county courthouse in America. I also hear you can get the "Jerry Springer" complete DVD set soon! Oh Joy! Nothing but 'billy's blasting each other in drunken stupors all day long, sleeping with their grandparents and all sorts of fun stuff.

Here in Indiana, we have country folk shooting each other pretty much everyday.

[MADem]

5. There's one good reason

If he was Chester the Molester going after one of those young ones, and it was a habitual problem, I could sorta see her point. I know she could call authorities and whatnot, but if it were a situation of that nature, there's room for temporary insanity.

I haven't been watching much tv lately, though, so I haven't seen 'coverage without end, Amen' about this--the little I saw just said that the police were being "tight lipped" about the reasons, and they were charging her with MURDER ONE. Quick shot of the accused in a striped orange number, and then on to the next bit of dreck.

So, whatever her reason, unless she gets a silverback/shark lawyer, she's gonna have time to think about what she did.

As for talking heads with opinions, they actually PAY them to act like assholes...but there must be something to their methods and their madness, because people tune in!

Whaddaya gonna do?

[Neil Lisst]

77. that's still not good enough

In half the contested custody fights in America, the wife claims the husband sexually abused the kids. It's such an epidemic most family court judges look askance at such claims without significant evidence to support it. Women lying about their dead husband is nothing new, but it has never had such a widely receptive audience until now.

If he's guilty of being "chester the molester," that's up to a court of law to determine, not a woman who may or may not be telling the truth. No one appointed her judge, jury, and executioner. She's a calculating murderer who is little better than the former employee who kills his boss.

The fact that so many so readily accept the Chester the molester rationale is the reason so many woman make that false claim today. They know they will be believed, and they know the bleeding hearts will rally to them.

Sometimes a murderer is just a murderer.

[MADem]

119. I didn't say CLAIM, though

To the best of my knowledge, she hasn't claimed anything. The cops aren't saying. I have actually seen very LITTLE coverage of this story, lucky me.

If she walked in on the guy abusing a kid, hell, who knows what anyone would do? I doubt the first thing out of her mouth in that case would be "Excuse me dear, as soon as you finish schtuping the eight year old, I'll need the car keys to make a quick trip to the police station..."

I am not saying it is "right" I am saying it is UNDERSTANDABLE.

And yes, sometimes a murderer IS just a murderer. And sometimes not.

Time will unfold the story--FWIW, I don't pretend to know what actually happened. I merely postulated a possible scenario.

[Neil Lisst]

123. I doubt we will ever know the truth. We'll know her "story."

She and her attorneys are probably creating that now, and it may or may not be fact based. If she tells the truth, she'll be the first murderer who did.

[LittleClarkie]

7. And if she wasn't Suzy Christian, we'd have a different focus as well

Their faith shouldn't change who's side we'd be on if she was an abused spouse.

[elfin]

9. A friend's theory - he was doing something nasty

to one of the little girls. We shall see.

[Blue_In_AK]

15. That was my thought, as well...

[pnwmom]

12. There's a double standard, but not the one you're talking about

Every other year or so, some guy around here kills his children, or his wife and children. It NEVER makes the national news. It's not news when the man is the murderer.

[Neil Lisst]

14. It's always news when a guy kills his children.

It's news because she's a preacher's wife, she's a white woman, and she fled with her kids. If it had been the husband doing the killing and running, it still would have been in the news.

But TV news loves to obsess over missing white women.

[pnwmom]

23. When does it make national news? When a man kills his family around here

it hits the local news, sure. But never the national news.

[hughee99]

52. Never makes national news?

Scott Peterson?
Neil Entwhistle?

[pnwmom]

72. I was talking about the Seattle area. More specifically, my city where

some man murders members of his family (and then often kills himself) about every 2 or 3 years. You never hear about it on national news. It's just not news.

[CTyankee]

44. When I was growing up in Texas, my next door neighbor shot her husband

in their driveway. I think it was pointblank, with a pistol she kept in her glove compartment for "protection." The reason? He had married her for her money (which she got from a settlement with her first husband) and then cheated on her with a younger, prettier woman.

This woman was scary. It was well known that she had anger management problems, even then (the 1950s). It made front page headlines in Dallas, quite a big deal. She got life in prison, despite her high priced lawyer. But she developed "heart trouble" and spent all her time in the prison infirmary, then got a nice pardon from Gov. Alan Shivers when he left office.

I think Mary Winkler is a different story. A screw is definitely loose or it was to defend the kids or both. She won't be out any time soon. Don't worry. She won't come after you and shoot you in the back!

[Neil Lisst]

80. she's going away a long, long time

as she should

[Donald Ian Rankin]

55. It's not just every other year or so.

I forget what the proportion of murders committed by spouse or partner of the victim is, but I'm fairly sure it's well over 90, at least here in the UK. Usually, but by no means always, it's a man killing a woman. Virtually none of those, either way round, makes any form of news at all.

It may well be true that the one case in thousands that gets picked up by the media is woman-kills-man rather than man-kills-woman disproportionately often, though. I don't know what the statistics are, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

On the other hand, one could certainly argue that the more unusual an event is, the more newsworthy it is.

[Neil Lisst]

13. Maybe, just maybe, she's a terrible person.

What kind of person shoots another person in the back, then leaves them there to bleed to death?

I'm amused that so many are already ready to offer her absolution based upon speculated criminal acts of the husband.

[sendero]

20. Because there is a myth...

... particularly among liberal folks it seems to me, that women are "morally superior" to men. What a load of hogwash that is :)

[Neil Lisst]

30. That is the problem, the double standard.

We have a goodly number of citizens who are always ready to believe the husband had it coming, always ready to excuse the wife for killing him.

Ironically, it's some of the same people who will cry crocadile tears over a guy like Tookie Williams.

I don't believe in the state murdering prisoners, and I damn sure don't believe in husbands and wives killing each other.

[LittleClarkie]

32. He had it comin'. He had it comin'. He only had himself to blame...

Okay, that's going to be stuck in my head now.

[WinkyDink]

89. I'm amused at your automatic hatred and labelling of her.

[Neil Lisst]

100. I'm amused at your insults and conclusions

Do you always rely on personal insults as your primary form of discussion?

I've made factual comments about her. The rest is in your mind.

[sproutster]

16. I'm with you ... but something is decidedly odd about this case

1. "dreamteam" laywers working pro bono
2. Did not ask for bond (because of funeral?)
3. Asked and recieved a private viewing (??!!)
4. Grand Jury as opposed to Prelim (private)

In post partem psychosis, people close to victim notice difference. In this case NO ONE noticed a thing.

...Following this one coz curiousity is killing me.

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. ...Following this one coz curiousity is killing me.

Which is exactly what they want.

This isn't news.

It's a whupped up story of they same type that comes up every couple weeks - bread and circuses. Does this really concern anyone but this woman and her immediate relatives (including in-laws)?

Distractions, distractions, distractions.

[rodeodance]

27. its the 'good Christian women

that just puzzles many.

[sproutster]

31. Blah ... I am facinated by true crime ...

The victimology (sp), the motive, and the court case. Mostly I am interested in civil rights and how the media fits in.

I didn't follow Aruba - I just figured the most likely outcome was accidental overdose. I figure the guys were probably guilty. It was "typical" for lack of a different term.

I do follow the ones that appear to have "problems" or are "different" in some way.

--Please don't be offended by the words I am using - I do my best to stay objective, and not come to any judgement until it's all in - so I'm trying to use the words for objectivity - uh, I think. :)

This one has some interesting things brewing, and I highlighted them for perusal.

I'm interested in the club one as well - something isn't right with that one, and the media is being kind of contradictory. The "evidence" as it stands is pretty unbelievable.

Finally - after that (probably confusing) explaination of myself and views...
<Does this really concern anyone but this woman and her immediate relatives (including in-laws)?>
YES. Anytime a case that may go to trial by jury -- We should be well aware of what the media is reporting, and what is "common knowledge" to the jury pool.

That's my opinion anyways.

[bmbmd]

68. It is news to me. Don't discuss it if it bores you so much.

One man's newspaper is another man's bird cage liner.

[sendero]

18. Sexism...

... is alive and well. Liberals don't give a shit, as long as it's not directed at women.

[newspeak]

65. actually, you're wrong

that is a false statement. Maybe some liberals but not all. I am against domestic violence, whether the perpetrator is a man or woman. It does lasting damage to children to see such violence. Children learn how to debate and solve problems while observing the relationship of parents and family. Domestic violence harms the family unit, especially children who are attempting to discover how relationships work, how men and women treat each other, how to debate and problem solve. It's the whole dynamics.

[Neil Lisst]

81. you're right, and there are too many who want to excuse women

I take it as a given that there are men who are bad men, who hit their wives and kids, and who are bastards.

But I also take it as a given that there are women who are bad women, who hit their husbands and kids, and who are bastards. There are just as many abusive mothers as abusive fathers, and both sexes abuse the other. Men are more deadly when they do so, however, and tend to kill more. But let's not excuse their female counterparts.

[Divernan]

24. Was that same gun hubby threatened to kill their neighbor's dog with?

Saw a story yesterday were Mr. & Mrs. Minister's next door neighbor cautioned people against granting the deceased sainthood until all the facts come out. She said he came to their home in a rage and threatened to shoot their dog if it ever set foot on his property. (I remeber that as a favorite redneck threat from my time living next door to a Georgia redneck. Their four year old would stand in the front yard and yell at people walking by on the sidewalk, "Stay off my propitty!"
He sounded just like his beer guzzling, alcoholic father. And of course they gave the kid beer at dinner too. His parents thought it was so funny to see him drunk.) Now before anyone gets his shorts in a twist (Hi Neil), I don't know what horrible thing their dog may have done, but said dog was happily gamboling around the reporter without attacking.

[Neil Lisst]

34. well, they did have three small kids, I believe, and ...

... dogs often see little ones as potential prey and treat little ones accordingly. A dog that is perfectly fine with its own family may nevertheless go after a toddler next door without a thought.

Brandishing the gun was troubling, but then, we are only hearing the neighbor's version of what happened.

[REP]

112. Yes, Threatening Violence With a Gun is Fine When Children are Involved!

And when a big, strong MAN does it! He had a goood reason to make threats of violence over a dog!

Now who's quick to judge?

And why does the presence of children justify any bad behavior on the behalf of entitlement-minded parents?

[Neil Lisst]

113. read my post again

It's easy to understand. I'm sure if you'll read it 8 or 9 times ...

[Jeffersons Ghost]

28. unequal justice is no justice at all

And to think she ran here to Alabama... She might have gone on a killing spree and taken out a bunch of these evangelical fundamentalists brainwashers... Boy was that a close call! hehehe

[cantstandbush]

33. I must agree with you. Methinks the RW-Christian conservatives bunch

really don't want the facts to come out and smear the funddies. But it's a no win situation for them as far as I am concerned. Either the victim was an evil bastard or she is.

[Neil Lisst]

35. Even if he was a terrible man doing terrible things, it's still wrong

And I find the straining to justify her murdering him by some a little premature.

[newspeak]

56. let's see why she shot him okay?

My fellow worker and friend was in an abusive marriage--she'd come to work with black eyes, bruises. She finally left him and took the kids because he was abusing the kids. Well, she was at a local restaurant with friends, he caught up with her attempting to argue with her--she turned around and walked out the door--in the middle of the street, with people around, as her back was turned, he shot her. As she went down, he shot her again--told her "I told you not to turn away." He held shocked people at bay by gun point so that they couldn't help her--then he shot himself. We don't know if it was abuse, but don't tell me how easy it is to leave. My mom was in an abusive relationship for seven years-anyone who gave her refuge, he attacked. This was back in the fifties and sixties before shelters. Mom finally left him--I was twelve by then. we got away because we no longer feared him-it was him or us. You see where that mentality comes from? Him or Us? Either he was going to kill us or we would wind up probably hurting him. We ran to another state and haven't looked back in all of these years.

[Neil Lisst]

82. she killed him because she wanted him dead

the rationalization may provide her with some legal defense, and I'm sure we'll hear such testimony, whether it's true or not. Unfortunately, SHE KILLED THE ONLY PERSON WHO DEFEND HER HUSBAND.

The man in your story was a murderer, as is the preacher's wife in this one. Neither deserves sympathy.

[WinkyDink]

90. The defendant is automatically guilty, eh? And YOU'RE the good Liberal?

There are DEGREES of homicide, and not all are "murder".

[Neil Lisst]

97. stop slinging personal insults. THIS defendant has already admitted it

Unless you're going to argue she tripped, fell and accidently shot him, it's murder. And guess what? Even if she did that, it's still murder.

Negligent homicide. Ever hear of it?

[Catherine Vincent]

36. There has always been double standards in this country.

So what else is new?

[NativeTexan]

37. SEE WHAT CHENEY HAS STARTED????

:kick:

[Jeffersons Ghost]

41. that's exactly what I was thinking this morning tex

Is it a new republican trend? If it is, we've got to get them to stop using bird-shot. Buck-shot works better.

[Vidar]

38. Dreaming it was pickles. Sigh.

[spooky3]

39. Because statistically the cases involving men and women ARE different

Now, let me say these caveats first:

1) I do not know what happened in this case and I am not defending her or the news coverage of her.
2) Every person should be treated as an individual rather than as a member of a group and each case should be judged on its facts.

But the reality is:

1) women rarely engage in violence against men. I think the statistics I have read are that men are 10 times more likely to be involved in crime and even more likely to be involved in violent crime than women are.
2) when women do shoot men, very frequently there is a documented history of abuse or a valid self-defense claim. This is far less likely to be true when men shoot or otherwise harm women.

Given the HUGE disparity in these numbers, I think that it is understandable that the media coverage is what it is. That does not mean that it is ok to presume that she had a good reason, that violence is justified, or anything like that.

[Llewlladdwr]

40. Complete Bullshit.

Not only are women more likely to abuse those with whom they are in a relationship (spouse and/or children) they're also much more likely to use a weapon when doing so.

Go look through some of these studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[Neil Lisst]

42. That is an excellent resource that deals all the myths about the topic

In truth, women attack men as much if not more than men attack women. Women use biting, scratching, kicking, and throwing things more, while men resort to more lethal actions such as beatings and choking.

I thought this one interesting, in one study:

Results suggest that male violence decreased with higher educational attainment, while female violence increased.

[CTyankee]

45. Boy, since I got that Master's degree I've been feeling funny

No wonder hubby stays out of the kitchen when I'm using a big knife.

[Neil Lisst]

47. Never argue with a woman chopping vegetables with a knife

I've never read that anywhere before, but I thought it was kind of interesting.

I don't believe any one study can be relied upon, but viewing many taken by a wide variety of sources helps to form a composite.

It's clear that men inflict more serious damage than women when they abuse.

[newspeak]

59. women can be charged with assault

however, some men think that it is not "manly" to press charges, as if they can control the situation just because they are men. There are "berserker" crazy women out there--I've known a few men who were married to them. You know, there are men who are raised to respect women and not harm them, then they marry an abuser. It can be bad, very bad. This older couple my hubby knows, well they came to visit. I refused to come out and meet them because I was told they got into knock out fights, he was abusive. After they left, my hubby informed me, it was both of them pounding on each other. Ain't love grand????? They'd been married for over thirty years-still doing those knock out fights. Couldn't understand it, still don't understand it.

[Neil Lisst]

70. men rarely file any domestic complaint against SOs, no matter

no matter how often they're attacked or how severely.

Again, it's the social standards. Women can victims, but men can't.

[incapsulated]

83. Let's go straight to the REAL CRIME STATISTICS, shall we?

I mean the LETHAL kind, not a slap in the face.

In 1998 intimate partner homicides accounted for about 11% of
all murders nationwide. Of the 1,830 persons murdered by
intimates in 1998, 72% or 1,320 were women. Female murder
victims were substantially more likely than male murder victims
to have been killed by an intimate partner. In 1998 intimate
partner homicides comprised about 33% of the murders of women
but about 4% of the murders of men.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ipv.txt

[Neil Lisst]

103. As I have said about ten times in this thread, men are more lethal

Lethal means inflicting more damage or killing.

And you know what? Those men are murderers, and they deserve to be called murderers, and treated as murderers.

The men who kill their SO do not justify in any way the women who kill their SO.

Your stats are irrelevant to the issue of whether a woman should be excused for killing her SO. They simply show that a woman is much more likely to be killed by her SO than a man is.

[incapsulated]

105. I wasn't adressing you, though. n/t

[Neil Lisst]

108. since I've adopted by reference the post to which you made reply

and since it's in the middle of the night, I responded

perhaps that person will respond, too, in due time

[spooky3]

73. for those interested in evidence from a criminologist

rather than opinions of people with an agenda, please get your reading glasses out for this:

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0006/ts000624.htm

[Neil Lisst]

74. you cited an article in the Toronto Star, not compelling data

We've posted numerous studies that show the incidence of violence between men and women is about the same, but men are more lethal than women.

I hope people will read them, instead of listening to anecdotal evidence from those who have an agenda.

[spooky3]

116. Why don't you pull up the articles that this criminologist has written?

Did you look at his curriculum vitae, as I did?

http://www.neilboyd.net/pages/bio.html#Anchor-Curriculum-14210

Do you understand what standards academics must meet to publish in refereed journals or get promoted at top Canadian (or other) universities? Do you think that anyone can get books published on crime? Or did you really think that anyone can get quoted in the paper so his observation of empirical evidence has the same weight as your opinions?

And finally, have you noticed that I am not referring only to domestic violence but to perpetration of other types of crimes as well?

[Neil Lisst]

122. I'm not impressed with your source.

I've read plenty of sources. You act as if this is a new topic in the world and anyone who doesn't see it your way must not have read the extensive data on the subject.

As for as standards for publishing? Please. Who hasn't been published? Each department in a university is but a group of people who tend share common viewpoints. They write what they believe, which are, after all, mere opinions supported by whatever they can use to justify their position.

[lukasahero]

43. Has she been tried?

I believe I'm quoting you on this: "Innocent until proven guilty? That's a quaint idea. I'm afraid there are some who don't care for it, but such is always the case."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=791800&mesg_id=799530

[Neil Lisst]

48. good point, except she's already said she did it

[MsUnderstood]

50. the innoncent til proven guilty still applies

In the american court system you can excuse yourself out of a crime using several different reasons including

Self defense
Mental defiecieny
Cornered Dog syndrome (didn't have a choice based on history of relationship).

The posters above were giving you examples of such and you belittled them.

So continue to bash and complain but she is still innocent until she PLEADS GUILTY or a jury determines her fate.

[Neil Lisst]

51. and she's still already said she did it

[QC]

46. But women are sugar and spice and everything nice.

Men are snips and snails and puppydog tails. That means he must have made her do it.

Or at least that's what I learned at DU.

[Neil Lisst]

49. You've learned well, QC!

It's always HIS fault when there's domestic violence.

Talk about your urban legends.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

57. Not always, just usually.

That doesn't have anything to do with the rights and wrongs of any specific case, obviously, but it's worth baring in mind that this one isn't representative - there are far more women killed by their husbands than men killed by their wives - when trying to draw any larger conclusions about e.g. gender politics, crime and punishment etc from it.

[Neil Lisst]

60. studies

look through some of these studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

[newspeak]

64. I've worked in a domestic violence

shelter, the graveyard shift. While working there, only two men came to seek shelter for domestic violence. All others were women and children. We put men up in a motel, since we have women and children at the shelter. I believe men who are abused probably have financial means to leave, moreso, than women, especially with children. Therefore, they do not require the assistance that is offered at the shelter. Also, some men may think they can control the situation themselves, moreso than women. Abuse is abuse-assault is assault. Let's see what becomes of this situation, shall we? If he was abusing or molesting the children, it may be a different story. It could be an act of rage for hurting the children. We don't know, so we will have to see.

[Neil Lisst]

69. I have said many times she may have a defense she can assert

but it still doesn't justify shooting her husband in the back, leaving him there to die, and leaving with the kids.

I won't be surprised if she claims abuse, as that is pretty much SOP when a woman kills her husband in America. And he may have been abusive, but I still don't think it justifies murder.

As I said earlier, there's a real double standard in America when it comes to women v. men in criminal cases. Women are presumed to be abused and truthful, and men are presumed to be lying and guilty.

When men are attacked by women, it's usually not as lethal as when men attack women.

[sendero]

61. The essence..

... of not being a racist, a sexist or an ageist is to not assume anything about an individual based on "statistics" about a group that individual belongs to.

[Neil Lisst]

63. thanks

for kicking the thread

I'm not sure why you made the post, but certainly statistics cannot prove any case. You have to follow the conversation from post to post for comments to be read in context.

The statistics I used were in rebuttal to false generalizations made earlier.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leftofthedial]

71. "She's A Runaway"

You know Mary was a woman fine
She was living with a hard guy
Mary got beat up
One too many times

She's a runaway
Run, run, runaway

Mary stole some money
And she got herself a gun
Then she shot her man down
Now she's on the run

Chorus

And she ain't looking back anymore
She says, "Catch me if you can, Lord"

You know she didn't want to do it
But he just pushed her too far
Everybody's got a breaking point
And baby, there you are

Chorus

And she ain't looking back anymore
She says, "Catch me if you can, Lord"

Well that's the story
Of Mary and the gun
She's a lot tougher now
She's living on the run

Chorus

Chorus

[FredScuttle]

84. Hey Neil!

What does the good Swami have to say about domestic violence?

[WinkyDink]

85. Don't worry; she'll get a harsher sentence.

[Neil Lisst]

101. We don't know what kind of sentence she'll get.

But since she's a wife, and she's tiny, and she's white, and middle class, and she'll probably use some emotion based defense, she'll probably get something around 15-30 years.

[REP]

111. Can You Give Me The Lottery Numbers, Too?

[Neil Lisst]

115. No, you might want to consult the sources you usually use for that

I deal in reality, not emotion-driven angst.

There is such a thing as experience, and it does matter when addressing issues in the criminal justice system.

Besides, I could care less about the lottery. I'd never waste a dollar on such frivolous and wasteful use of money.

I like to bet on sure things, like how many years Mrs. Preacher will get.

15-30, somewhere in there.

[Moderator]

127. Locking

flamewar