|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know, I can understand ACCIDENTALLY shooting someone. I could even go with ACCIDENTALLY poisoning someone (i.e. giving the wrong dosage of medication). But how in the hell do you ACCIDENTALLY stab someone to death?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have a point. If I were judging this case I'd think that aaccidentally stabbing means she was threatening him with a knife. That means "death during the commission of a felony" which means first degree murder.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You don't. Plain and simple. Anymore than you accidentally strangle sombody to death. Too much force and intent is required to actually jam a blade into another person, badly enough to kill them where they stand (or sit). Any "accident" of that kind could be easily remedied with a PROMPT call for an ambulance in most cases. What a proposterous claim, and certainly not one any women's rights group would swallow if it came from a man! Hmm. Could have worded that better...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
accidentally stabbed. No, I accidentally tryed to kill him. PMS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if she did kill him intentionally, remember, she did it because she's a victim of the patriarchy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Even if she did kill him intentionally, remember, she did it because she's a victim of the patriarchy."
Right on Thomas! She suffered from postpatriarchal depression.
You need your beets -- you recycle, recycle!
Don't eat your beets -- recycle, recycle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 02, @10:05AM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
But how in the hell do you ACCIDENTALLY stab someone to death?
Trip and fall with your knife pointing the wrong way.
About the only way I can think of.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am sure that the defense will be that she was a victim of abuse and the stabbing was in self-defense. This to me shows that women are just as guilty of abuse as men are. Being an adult means your responsible for your own actions. Since there are no witnesses and she's a woman I am sure she is likely get off or receive a partial sentence. (wait until NOW and other gender-fems get ahold of this one!)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @02:41AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Simple. You are born a woman and then you get a free ticket to murder using any number of defences that are exclusive to that gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday February 01, @01:01PM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Notice how the super-fems are not saying a word on this murder. Also, note the short length of the article and the complete lack of details.
It is almost as if the reporter was forced to publish the article. Interesting that there is a complete absence of the murder coverage on nbc, abc, cbs, cnn, msnbc, & fox.
If this were a male they would be all over the story and vilifying men once again. We all know that the female looks meek and mild in the photo. Why she even looks like a victim. Damn it! This has got to be a genuine case of self defense (no sarcasm intended of course)!
Worse, in CA we have the primary aggressor laws. That means that if men were treated equal that she would be treated as the primary aggressor even if the male were the first aggressor. However, we all know that the super-fems have used the height of sophistry to craft the law as a weapon against males. That is why her super-fem advocate will most likely convince the judge and jury that the murder was “accidental,” and she will get off because we all know that a woman cannot be murderous by virtue of her sex. It had to be the males fault. Why? Because she is a woman damn-it and they cannot murder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice how the super-fems are not saying a word on this murder.
Give them time. The words "self defense" will pop out shortly, especially considering the article stated that the "accidental" stabbing was during an argument.
Of course, we cannot say for certain she wasn't defending herself (not on the lack of facts presented in the story), but, if she was, why say it was an "accident?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
... the stabbing occured during a gesticulative moment in the argument.
They were yelling an screaming about him picking up his clothes instead of leaving them lying around all over the place, she was making the salad; picked up the 14 inch razor sharp chef's knife, he screams I can't see the clothes you're yelling about, she yells "are jou blind man", she stomps around the cornner into the living room as he is stomps around the corner into the kitchan just at the moment she screams "dey right der man, RIGHT DARE!!! AAAHHHHYyyyy carumba!!!! Jou okay honeeeyyy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Worse, in CA we have the primary aggressor laws.
What is this law? Could someone explain it to me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday February 03, @02:34AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
This is a difficult question to answer. It requires examining the penal and family codes of CA. You can look up the actual codes at the following links:
Has definition of primary aggressor:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=71915326519+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
"...The primary aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the primary aggressor, an officer shall consider
(A) the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing
abuse,
(B) the threats creating fear of physical injury, (C) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and
(D) whether either person involved acted in self-defense."
****************************************
What this code does is make it illegal for the male to use any force to prevent injury that may be caused by the first aggressor (a woman). The reason is that there is an assumption that a male is always going to cause injury in a self-defense situation. But a female is able to use deadly force when the male is the primary aggressor because the male is assumed to be the more violent of the two sexes.
For example, if a woman is abusing alcohol and starts throwing objects at her husband it is assumed that she is less likely to inflict injury. Of if the woman starts beating the male on the chest the super-fems assume she highly unlikely to cause injury. There are a plethora of feminist sites that explicitly make that statement.
So, the result is that if the male uses force then they become the primary aggressor. The ultimate effect is that most every male (at least 90%+) in CA has been systematically defined as committing criminal acts against their domestic partners, dating partner, or whatever.
All that is necessary to become the primary aggressor is for the female to claim that she was in fear, and she can make up any lie to claim reasonable fear. Then she dials 911 and you get the fun of being arrested....no questions asked. Next, they will charge you with domestic violence, and you will be sent to a reeducation camp.
It's just like we used to hear about in the communist countries, and it is now a fact of reality.
*************************************
To further make the point, examine the law detailing the requirements for a restraining order. Note that a female in a divorce situation can claim that any further contact will cause emotional damage. Also note that if the male makes a few phone calls in an attempt to reconcile that it can be a cause for a restraining order. In this way the male can easily loose all of their family and property rights.
Here is the link to the requirements for a restraining order:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoc ID=71933726706+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
I guarantee that it will terrify you if you understand what is being said in the code. You have literally no protections against a female that wishes to inflict legal harm against you (the male).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That is one *freaky* photo of her, too."
Yep. She has that same look my ex-fiance had after she started mixing vodka with her prozac. Even though she didn't need that to bring on an outbreak of violent behavior, that's when she started looking for weapons to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
She has that same look my ex-fiance had after she started mixing vodka with her prozac.
I prefer Tia Maria with prozac. Vodka with prozac? Yuck!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is CREEPY!
She looks like an addict...
I can see an accidental shooting, but a STABBING? That's ridiculous! Especially until he died!
Lorena Bobbit, anyone?
"Female men's activist" is not an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
