Woman who bludgeoned husband to death with hammer released on appeal

Article here. Jump the paywall by Googling the first paragraph.

'Challen, now 65, admits to killing her husband but denies murder, arguing that she has diminished responsibility because of the physical and psychological abuse to which he subjected her.

Her attorney, Harriet Wistrich, pursued that argument by pointing to a law approved in 2015 that recognizes coercive control as a criminal offense. Notably, the statute does not require that the abuse present an imminent lethal danger, an element that has been central to the use in U.S. courts in what some call the “battered woman’s defense.”

The decision affirmed in stark terms just how terribly marital violence matters and pointed to new understanding, in the era of the #MeToo movement, that not all injuries are external. It acknowledged, Wistrich said, how abuse and belittlement make themselves invisible by winding their way into the very fabric of female experience.'

Like1 Dislike0


If confronted by non-lethal force, esp. not significantly threatened at the moment, every legal system in the world says before using force you have to just walk away.

Assuming it is true this guy was psychologically abusive, how can using lethal force as a defense against psychological abuse be justifiable?

Answer: When the killer's female and the victim is male.

Like2 Dislike0

Someone needs to send this article to the The Dalai Lama.
According to him women are the "empathetic", "nurturing" sex who can do no wrong and men are the "murdering" sex, who can do no right.
I would have never taken the Dalai Lama to be a simp. *thinking face*

Like2 Dislike0

Feminist ideology has gained such a strong foothold in western jurisprudence that now, the ideologically constructed power relationship between women and the patriarchy is being used as a defence in murder.

This murderer's defence was that she was under the coersive control of her husband and was not responsible for her actions. She was so down trodden by her husband's masculinity that her only escape was to carefully plan to execute him, by brutally smashing his skull in with a hammer. So even though she admitted that at the time of the murder, she was thinking about the post-nuptual agreement she had recently signed, the court reframed her as the victim of her brutally murdered husband.

This is a licence for any woman to execute their partner (or any man in a domestic environment) when ever they please, as the motives and actions of the accused and the victim are subplanted with ideologically manufactured motives and actions. The victims state of mind and evidence of the relationship is never known and is condsidered irrelevant.

When the laws of the land are no longer applied impartially to all, these are no longer laws, but the instruments of tyranny.

Like1 Dislike0

Between "battered women" defenses for crimes and the right to abortion, women have been given a license to kill.

And yet they are constantly portrayed as the caring and nurturing sex. AT one time, perhaps they were. Mother Teresa comes to mind. But one of my complaints about feminists is that they often claim traditional female virtues while eschewing those virtues for themselves. Virtues are something one develops; they do not come with the territory of being male or female. They are properties of the individual, not the group.

Like1 Dislike0