|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose the woman would have been charged with something more serious if she had harmed something more important, such as a another woman, a household pet, or someone's property. Fortunately, she only damaged an unperson.
Then again, maybe she was just being more ... direct ... about doing physically what Gen-Fems are trying to do socially.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose you could speculate that if the wife's genitals were shot instead of the husband's, the incident would fall under the category of abuse, and the husband would go to jail.
On the other hand, if you read the article, it says that the couple often played with shotguns during their love-making sessions, only this time the wife had forgotten (or is that "forgotten" with scare-quotes?) that the gun was loaded. This crucial piece of information should have been included in the item on this site, guys! Getting a little careless, aren't we?
Given what must be considered a wilfully misleading omission (indeed, no other interpretation is remotely possible)--an incontrovertible, necessarily painful and deeply humilating truth that those responsible must vehemently deny, however vainly, to protect their egos and reputations--it almost goes without saying that anyone who plays with weapons like this couple is lucky to be alive.
Ok, I'm kidding about the severe, inexcusable and egregious lack of taste and judgement suggested by the inclusion of this news item and the omission of the circumstances under which the said genitalia were shotgunned. Don't take it seriously (but don't do it again).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 29, @11:45AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
News of the Wierd? Isn't this just like the tabloid newspapers? I don't think this is worthy material to post on this web site - it could hurt our credibility. I like this site more than the other ones out there because it focuses on quality rather than quantity of stories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if this truly was an accident and the husband decided not to press charges, i don't see what the hullabaloo is all about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if this truly was an accident and the husband decided not to press charges, i don't see what the hullabaloo is all about.
Brad,
You are missing the point. If the roles were reversed and the husband accidentally shot the woman in the groin, he would not get off. In fact he would be charged under domestic violence (DV) laws and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Claiming it was an accident would be summarily dismissed.
Further, under current DV laws the wife would not have the right to choose not to press charges. That right has been transferred to DA's in all states. The outrage is that the husband was permitted to choose, under the false guise of chivalry, not to press charges and the woman got off. It is literally another incremental step that reinforces the woman’s right to kill a domestic partner without consequence.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ah. that makes it clearer. perhaps that should have been in the header... unless of course i'm the only one who didn't see that as obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with warble -- I also find it hard to believe that this was an accident. It's quite common for men not to press charges against partners who have castrated them; how often do women play with guns and just happen to hit their favorite target?
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday June 29, @11:45PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I think it cane easily be argued that it is reasonable for the husband not to press charges if it was an accident. The fact that it wouldn't be allowed if roles were reversed is irrelevant. The roles were NOT reversed.
In other words, saying something unjust would have happened if roles were reversed, therefore something unjust should happen in this case, is simply rediculous.
We should try to be just. Injustice as a tool for revenge in the face of other injustices is the WRONG path to follow.
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it cane easily be argued that it is reasonable for the husband not to press charges if it was an accident. The fact that it wouldn't be allowed if roles were reversed is irrelevant. The roles were NOT reversed.
Irrelevant to what, specifically? Perhaps irrelevant to the fact that the roles were not reversed, but that fact is irrelevant to the more general claim that double standards of justice are applied to men and women. The relevance of this case to differing standards of justice depending on gender is weakened somewhat by the circumstances. Stories of games with "unloaded" weapons gone awry go back for ages; in this case, the parties enjoyed aiming a shotgun at the husband's genitals.
Unfortunately, the story was presented as if another man-hater blasted her husband's genitals off and got a free pass from the criminal justice system, which exaggerated its relevance to the large issue of gender bias in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, it is relevant even in this case to ask whether the judicial system treats men and women differently; you seem to suggest that some kind of intellectual argument makes it inadmissible to broach any of these surrounding issues. No one is suggesting that a test of injustice is that you reverse the roles, find that there is an injustice with the reversed roles and conclude there is an injustice in the original, unreversed situation. The question is whether there is a general pattern of unequal application of the law, depending on gender.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mars. Well said.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 02, @02:10PM EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I was worried because there seemed to be an implication in a previous comment that since there may be an imbalance in that a male would be treated unjustly in in a similar situation, then we should treat a woman similarly. This is not justice. This is not right. This is revenge. I think we must avoid adopting a revenge attitude at all costs. I believe that revenge sentiments is what got the current crop of radical feminists going in the first place. I don't want to be responsible for anything revenge related.
So yes, there is likely an imbalance in how a man would have been treated in this situation but it does not necessarily mean we should treat the woman any differently than she has been treated.
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In other words, saying something unjust would have happened if roles were reversed, therefore something unjust should happen in this case, is simply rediculous.
Garth,
I believe you are missing the point. The DV laws preclude the right of a woman to claim that a shooting is an accident. In law, there is no longer room for accidents in a domestic situation. When a husband accidentally injures a woman, there are mandatory arrest and prosecution laws. However, it is well known that the same laws are not equally applied against the wife in a DV case. This experience is one of the primary motivators of the men’s movement.
For example, let's say a husband and wife are having a heated argument. Then the husband finds that he should remove himself because his wife is a little drunk and the situation is escalating. I’m certain that you would agree that is a wise thing to do. So, when the husband tries to remove himself, the wife, in her anger uses force to stop him. In the process there is a genuine "accident," and the wife stumbles and falls. She hits her head and gets a minor concussion. Then during the confusion she believes that she was attacked (she wasn’t) and dials 911 for help. The rest is history. The man gets arrested, charged, and sent to a reeducation camp. This is an actual scenario that plays out over and over again throughout the U.S. even as I speak.
If the wife later realizes that it was an accident that is too bad. The laws allow the DA to disqualify her testimony. They do this by claiming the wife is being coerced and changing her testimony. After that the hearsay from the neighbors and police is used to convict the husband. The law does not allow the wife to change her testimony in any significant way. Doing so disqualifies her as a witness.
The only difference in the article is that the gender roles were reversed and the wife had a gun. Then there was an "accident" and she was able to get off when her husband said it was an accident. It is clearly an example of gender bias. Women get special treatment when they cause an accident while men get arrested and charged with a crime.
I don't disagree that there shouldn't be actual justice. That is a major motivation of the men's movement. But to get justice, women must be held equally accountable in DV "accidents" as men.
Can you really imagine a man telling the police that the wife told her to hold a shotgun to her vagina and pull the trigger? Then the man claims that she told me to do it? Next the wife claims it was an accident and she is believed? In today’s climate of male-hate, that simply will not happen. The Woman’s testimony would most likely be disqualified and the man would be in jail for life. People would just claim battered wife syndrome and dismiss her claims of an accident.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday July 02, @12:24PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Right, we agree that things should be just, and we agree that men and women should be held equally accountable for equal actions.
But then the question is, what is just? I argue that you shouldn't punish someone for, say, attempted murder (which I think implies intent), when in fact it was an accident. Getting charged with something such as reckless endangerment might make more sense.
Then, another poster says that if a man had pulled the trigger, then the machinery goes into motion and he gets charged with attempted murder. Ok, this is probably true, but this is also WRONG. We should not call for there to be equal wrongs committed regardless of gender, we should argue for equal justice. In other words, we should argue that in all cases if somebody blows somebody else's generitalia off by accident, they should be charged for doing it by accident.
In short, justice for men and women both, not injustice for men and women both.
Garth
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In short, justice for men and women both, not injustice for men and women both.
Very well said Garth. We agree on almost everything. I would only suggest that there is justice when there are equal outcomes. When something is an accident that does not mean that a person should not be held responsible. Clearly, in this case we do not have equal outcomes within the boundaries of the law.
In this case we agree that there was an accident; the wife at the instruction of the husband shot the husband in the groin with a shotgun. Then the woman was discharged of any legal consequences. That cannot be justice because there was negligence on the wife's part in ensuring the shotgun was not loaded. Further, because the accident involved a woman and husband, DV laws should have covered it. There is no such thing as a right thinking person holding a gun to another person and pulling the trigger. Just that act alone is extremely violent. It does not matter if the husband gave his consent.
What if a woman were asking a husband in Co to slap her in a sexual encounter. She claims to like the abuse and demands that he slap her again. The wife or domestic partner screams and demands to be slapped again. The abusive sexual encounter continues and a neighbor overhears the activity. So the neighbor dials 911 and the police arrest the husband for DV. There are mandatory charges filed, all weapons are seized, and a restraining order is filed against the husband. Despite all of this, the woman claims she was asking for the slaps as part of their sexual activity. She insist that no charges be filed.
In this scenario the law will disqualify the woman’s testimony. She will not be considered a credible witness. Pictures will be taken of the red marks on her face and used to prosecute the husband. He will be cut off from any activity with the children. It won’t matter if the woman will testify that the husband accidentally left the red marks on her face. It will not matter because that man is going to jail for DV, and he’ll do time in a radical feminist re-education camp. The man will most certainly be held accountable for the consequences of the “accident.”
In the case where the woman shot her husband, the woman should have been held equally accountable for her actions. Gees. Think about the outrage of the act. A person held a gun to another person and shot that person. When that happens with kids, the parents are held accountable even though it was an "accident." Accidents do not preclude liability.
Again, if this were a male then he would have been almost certainly held accountable for the “accident.” It would have been argued that the male was negligent in pointing the gun at his wife and pulling the trigger. We do not see men getting off when such accidents happen. By contrast, women are given special privilege to shoot and potentially kill their husbands.....accidentally. This case supports that conclusion, and there is clearly a lack of equal treatment under the law.
Just because something is an accident doesn't mean that we discharge a person of any legal consequences. If we did then there would be no consequences for a traffic accident. Nobody would be able to sue for damages in a traffic accident because everybody would claim it was just an "accident." Yet such suits are routine and well established. Most people are held accountable for accidents....except when that person is a woman harming a husband by shooting him with a shotgun in the groin.
Clearly, the argument that a woman should be permitted to accidentally shot the husband with no consequences stinks. It just doesn’t fly. Justice demands that there be consequences for such gross negligence. This woman should not be getting off just because the episode was an accident.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should also note that I believe that the woman should have been charged with DV in addition to charges of a felony for the first-degree reckless endangerment. I'm not saying she was not charged.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to another press report Susan W's story is that the incident occurred during some sort of sex play in which her partner would ask her to shoot his genitals off and she would pretend to do so with an unloaded weapon.
In this case, the story goes, the weapon somehow came to be loaded.
This story doesn't sound likely but it's possible he was giving in to his own conditioned self-hatred and loaded the weapon himself.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the point about this article is not whether or not it was an accident during sex but that a man's groin was injured. And as we all know in this culture a man getting hit, kicked, shot, burned or whatever between his legs is considered humorous beyond bounds.
But of course if the roles were reversed and it was the woman who was injured then the incident would be totally devoid of comedy and anyone who happened to find it funny would be indelibly and rightfully labeled a sicko sadist.
I am sure the good people of Wisconsin, a very misandrous state by the way, got a good belly laugh from reading about this incident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 05, @01:43AM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"A Melbourne man who shot dead a friend while pretending to be Al Pacino after watching one of the star's movies was today jailed for four years.
Justice Cummins said Barnwell did not intend to shoot O'Keefe, but he had come before the court for his gross negligence in play-acting with a firearm."
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/07/05/10256 67054653.html
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
