|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday August 16, @05:47PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is another one for the "No shocker" file.
I mean, this is SUCH an all to common story.
When are people going to WAKE UP?!?
Anyone who can't see what is happening in these cases is either blind, stupid or a feminist. (a bit redundant, I know.)
I just wonder how many children are gonna have to DIE (espesialy boys) before we come out of this ALL women are "angels" stupor.
we ignore the statistical data on who commits the most child abuse to the peril of our own sires.
I guess if it were more females being abused than males, we would hear the news media shouting; "This is a crisis." or "this is a national shame!" or some other canned rhetoric they're fond of regurgitating.
Again, This is no shocker.
What IS a shocker is that so FEW people see it all for what it is.
THAT'S the REAL "national shame".
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We should really start watching these cases more closely in regards to conviction and sentencing of the female. Is the sentence she's going to receive equal to what a man would receive? or is she just going to get a penalty similar to say a guy leaving his dog in the car until it expires?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And this woman is charged with "neglect of a dependent resulting in serious bodily injury"? Serious bodily injury my *$#! The kid' dead!
Anybody with legal expertise correct me if I'm wrong, but surely this kind of mistreatment result in a more serious charge? Manslaughter, maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @01:50AM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Why are we even ASKING if this woman will get the same treatment\sentence as a Man?
History, recent and not so recent, tells us she WILL NOT.
Sorry if I seem really STEAMED about this...., It's because I AM.
All she has to do is come up with some LAME excuse for this crime, and it's off to a "mental health clinic" for a free vacation, Then "probation"!
Any one familiar with the saying; "No justice, No peace."?
...I'm getting VERY sick of this sort of thing.
And I know I'm not alone in that feeling.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please note the very last paragraph or so, and the contact information at the end of the article.
This article may be found in its entirity at:
http://www.indystar.com/article.php?murder17.html
--------------------------------
3 die in shooting spree
By John Tuohy - August 17, 2002
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- By most accounts, Jeffrey Rainbolt was a doting father to his 22-month-old son, Thomas.
He played with him on the backyard swing of their two-story corner house on rural Garrison Chapel Road.
He insisted on keeping many of his son's toys when he and his wife, Rose Sowders, negotiated a divorce. And he faithfully paid $65 a week in child support from a $360-a-week supermarket job.
But police said his former wife may have resented the attention.
Early Friday morning, police said, Sowders capped a killing spree by shooting Rainbolt, 35, as he stood in his kitchen and the baby slept in a bedroom.
An hour earlier, she had fatally shot her boyfriend, Eric Sipes, 34, and his 10-year-old son Derrick in their heads as they slept, said Monroe County Sheriff's Detective Brad Swain.
Sowders, 33, was charged with three preliminary counts of murder. Formal charges could be filed Monday, when she may appear for an initial hearing in the Monroe County Courthouse, said Prosecutor Carl Salzmann.
After shooting Rainbolt, Sowders grabbed Thomas and drove to her brother's house in Greene County, about 12 miles away, where, according to police, she told him what she had done.
Sowders turned herself in at the house and handed over a small-caliber handgun to police. The boy remained in the custody of Sowders' brother.
Salzmann said it was too early to say whether prosecutors would seek the death penalty. Only one other woman is on Indiana's Death Row -- Debra Brown, for a 1986 murder in Gary.
Police, who interviewed acquaintances, said Sipes may have told Sowders he wanted to break off their relationship when she visited him Thursday night.
"It could have been coming to an end," Swain said.
Police did not know whether Sowders was there when Sipes and his son went to sleep or if she left and returned.
Police said Sowders and Rainbolt bickered about her care of Thomas.
The couple filed for divorce on Aug. 12, 1999, just over a year after their marriage.
A restraining order was issued against Rainbolt six days after the divorce filing, prohibiting him from going to Sowders' house or her place of employment, Cook Inc. in Bloomington.
Sowders feared Rainbolt "would continue to abuse, harass, disturb the peace or commit battery," according to court records.
Police said there were no violations of the order.
The divorce agreement became final on May 18, 2000, six months before Thomas was born. Rainbolt was allowed to visit Thomas every other weekend, and on Wednesdays from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Police said they didn't know why Thomas was with his dad Thursday night.
The lawyers who represented Rainbolt and Sowders in their divorce could not be reached for comment.
Neighbors said they often saw Rainbolt and Thomas on weekend mornings in the yard. A woman was frequently with them, said Jeremiah Schloesser, 23, who lives next door to Rainbolt's house. "Seemed like she was always there," he said.
Neighbor Harold Chestnut, 63, said he sold Rainbolt's parents the house in the late 1960s and remembers when Jeffrey Rainbolt was small.
"They were always a family that tried to keep to themselves," Chestnut said.
Danny Mullis, 33, said he played with Jeffrey Rainbolt and his brother, Jim, when they were young.
"I would come over and we would climb trees," he said. "They always stayed by the house. Good people."
Rainbolt's parents and Sowders' relatives refused interview requests. Sipes' relatives could not be reached.
Domestic violence against men is rare, said Tracey Horthkrueger, executive director of the Domestic Violence Network of Greater Indianapolis. More than 90 percent of the time, the victim is a woman, she said.
"It sure is rare around here," Salzmann said.
-------------------------------------------
Call John Tuohy at 1-317-444-6418.
john.tuohy@indystar.com
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Domestic violence against men is rare, said Tracey Horthkrueger, executive director of the Domestic Violence Network of Greater Indianapolis. More than 90 percent of the time, the victim is a woman, she said."
It's not rare. It's just not acceptable to allow it to be reported or recognized, and this due to the grip the radical feminist and their toady politicians have on the domestic violence industry.
Three more dead males, what a great day for celebration for those who have worked so hard to deny men relief from domestic violence.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I emailed the above opinion to the Indystar's editorial page, thanks to the email address you submitted. Let no lie go unchallenged.
Thank You for the Opportunity,
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @01:29AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I live in Indiana, so this is very close to where I live.
I doubt I'm alone when I say; we will more than likely see ALOT more of this sort of thing, not just in my "Neck of the woods" but accross the country as well.
How much do you want to bet, they'll find some way to blame the father?
and how much do you want to bet they'll find SOME excuse for Sowder's killing spree? "post partum depression", "Domestic abuse", "PMS", "Stress", "temporary insanity", "Full moon", "the dog told her to do it", Etc, Etc, Etc.
I can HEAR it now.
AND she will, most likely, get a MUCH lighter sentence than ANY man who commited the same type of crime. (if any sentence at all.)
Just wait and see. I'd bet nearly ANYthing.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday August 18, @01:39AM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, Yeah, I forgot to add this...;
I guess since "Domestic violence against males is rare" we should just not take this incident TOO SIRIOUS, Right, Tracey?
Like Ray said, It's not RARE at all. Just VERY well COVERED UP!!! (my paraphrase)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess since "Domestic violence against males is rare" we should just not take this incident TOO SERIOUSLY, Right, Tracey?
There's a term I use for describing this kind of phenomenon, and I'd like to share it because I think it's useful and telling. The phrase is 'statistical morality'. The essence of statistical morality is that our moral perception of something should not be absolute but should be proportional to some kind of statistical division or analysis imposed from outside. So, if you are a man and you are a victim of domestic violence, the perception of you 'victimness' depends on a number defining the proportion of DV victims who are male, rather than the severity of your experience. Feminism makes extensive use of statistical morality, hence their fervour in promoting the idea that 90-95% of DV victims are women. The remaining 5-10%, being such a small proportion, can, by applying statistical morality, be completely ignored without significantly affecting the number of recognised victims. By decoupling moral perception from physical events it is possible to discount the experiences an entire section of society without experiencing any sense of moral conflict. Quite the opposite, in fact. By defining men as such a small percentage of DV victims it is possible to perceive any attention given to male victims as a distraction from the real victims - i.e. women. This is the 'standard' feminist take on DV against men.
Feminist discussion of DV against men relies on statistical morality, and on an extensive filtering process. Male victims of DV are faced with an impossible number of hurdles to being recognised as victims. Even if we begin with the view that rates of DV against men and women are about the same - a view supported by considerable research evidence - it doesn't take long to define away most male victims. The first line of attack is to emphasise distinctions between the kinds of violence men and women experience, with men expected to put up with abuses that women are not. The second is to emphasise differences in the supposed reasons why men and women commit acts of DV, with men always portrayed in terms of the need to control and women portrayed in terms of the need to communicate, even though these distinctions are largely arbitrary interpretations.
Thirdly, extreme cases of DV against women are usually contrasted with more trivial cases of DV against men, as if each was representative of its kind. Remember, all these filtering processes are applied only to male victims of DV, not female ones, so the number of 'valid' male victims is made to look far less than the number of valid female victims by effectively having a different and much narrower definition of what constitutes DV against men as opposed to DV against women. At the end of this filtering obstacle course there will typically be a residual 5-10% of DV victims who are male. At this point, like a brick wall accross the finishing line, statistical morality is invoked to eliminate those male victims on the grounds that there are too few to bother with.
Yes, it stinks like the crap it is and it's time it all came to an end. But that's going to take time and lots of work. Meanwhile feminists will be thinking up ever more ways of etrenching their ideas in people's minds and in the workings of the legal system and other institutions. It is only a matter of time before any cop who arrests more than 5% female perpetrators of DV will be subject to some kind of automatic disciplinary action. Remember, modern feminism is essentially a form of Marxism, and has the same casual disregard for reality as that murderous, evil ideology. If reality doesn't fit their numbers they'll seek to change reality, not their minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 19, @05:10PM EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
Uberganger.
This is the most well thought out analysis on this subject I have ever seen.
"statistical morality". EXELENT term.
'Mind if I use it?
Heck, 'Mind if we ALL use it?
Again, BRAVO!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am in full agreement! very impressive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So, I'll ask the legal eagles here if this warrants a wrongful death lawsuit against the courts who left the child with his mom despite the obvious risk ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course not. The Judge did what he thought was in the ‘best interest of the child’. How would anyone prove otherwise?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, L&L, that's a glib answer, but it seems to me that there's more than just one judge involved in this case, and in fact, there are probably a handful of administrative types involved, too. Were I to be this father, I would be looking for evidence that the judge clearly misunderstood the circumstance that he was throwing this child into, and in fact that he had miscarried justice to the point of malfeasance.
Okay, I'm not a lawyer, and perhaps you are. So be it. But at some point, there has to be some legal recourse for these cases. The legal system should not be permitted to get away with overt stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
