|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Gregory on 06:10 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The feminists and women's groups will probably do what they did in the cases of Andrea Yates and Clara Harris. They'll rally to Winkler's defense with all sorts of excuses about psychological pressures on women and how society and their husbands neglect their emotional needs. There will be excuses offered about the psychological pressure that ministers' wives are under. Or the frustration that Winkler was experiencing as a result of social pressures to be a good mother and loyal, dutiful wife in a southern religious community. She was an unhappy woman with nobody to turn to, etc, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 06:36 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that there has already been considerable bad press over Catholic priests (why not nuns, one has to wonder?) This might offer another opportunity to identify Christianity with the man=bad, woman=victim meme.
"Sure, he was a minister, but you KNOW how those ministers are...." carefully leaving unsaid a whole host of accusations.
Somehow, somewhere, it will be a man's fault. I suspect the "Years of abuse" story is already being prepared on behalf of the poor, downtrodden murderess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 07:10 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"Somehow, somewhere, it will be a man's fault. I suspect the "Years of abuse" story is already being prepared on behalf of the poor, downtrodden murderess"--TomP
Yeah, I was thinking about the likelihood that Winkler will argue that she was the victim of years of abuse. Of course, her husband is no longer around to refute that accusation. Or perhaps he was involved or had been involved with another woman... or man. Or he had been abusing children, etc. Without corroborating evidence it will be tougher for her. I suspect that even without confirming evidence or testimony, she can create reasonable doubt by claiming she was the victim of long-term physical and/ or psychological abuse. The media, of course, will be sympathetic to poor Mary and will report (and editorialize) with its usual pro-feminist bias.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomP on 08:26 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I have to make a correction. The statement
"Somehow, somewhere, it will be a man's fault. I suspect the "Years of abuse" story is already being prepared on behalf of the poor, downtrodden murderess."
assumes that Mary Winkler is guilty. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law (as opposed to the popular press) should be the law for everyone, regardless of race, creed, color, sex, or place of national origin. I erred in assuming the guilt of the accused. I should have said "...alleged murderess..." or something of the sort.
mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 09:11 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe she has already confessed that she was the lone killer. BUT of course that doesn't mean she will go to prison or even get the death penalty. The motive for the murder hasn't been stated yet. Remember the mass murderer Andrea Yates confessed too and was convicted by jury trial but heaven and hell were moved to get her conviction overturned on a technicality. The objective now is to get her declared innocent by reason of TEMPORARY insanity and thus she walks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 10:39 PM June 12th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"I believe she has already confessed that she was the lone killer."--Luek
Yes, I think she confessed within a week or so of the killing. She's the killer. Her motive is the unanswered question. At least in terms of what's been made public.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:01 AM June 13th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right to amend your statement to include "alleged". Women are still entitled to the presumption of innocence under the misandric joke that has replaced the former criminal justice system. It's illegal to keep a female slave, but legal (and encouraged) keep a male slave, thanks to feminism. The only place where a defendant's right not to have prior acts used against him in a prosecution disappears is coincidentally the same place that the defendant loses his right to properly cross-examine his accuser (in any practical interpretation of the law, there are no circumstances under which a woman suffers the same loss of basic Magna Carta-era rights). That's right, you guessed it, sexual assault trials and domestic violence proceedings. In some jurisdictions, the accused man can't even attend the proceedings, or question his accuser. Which is only natural, since according to federal law, these are crimes where only men can commit the offense and only women can be the victims. Of course, those same courts also waive all liability for perjury and obstruction when it comes to all female-centric laws. Couldn't have the victims (of everything) facing responsibility now, could we?
On the off chance that a woman is mistakenly convicted of a crime, it's not like she faces the same penalties. Why just today, the BBC reported on two sexual predators who used threats of death and (in the female predator's case) a weapon, to obtain sex from children. The man got life, the woman got six months. Same crime. Naturally, the women's groups are screaming that the man's sentence is too lenient, and the media is playing up the woman's sentence as far too harsh.
None of this comes as a surprise from a culture that conditions men and women alike from birth to hate men, boys and masculinity with everything they've got, and which has convicted all men of the crime of not being women.
As a direct result of radical feminism and our culture of misandry, the courts are about as likely to treat a man fairly as Jim Crow laws were to treat a black man fairly. Why we even bother to show up (on the off chance we're allowed) is beyond me. The laws are designed to assure that only men are guilty and the courts have long since decided that only women can be victims.
Of course, given that the lawmakers and the courts we pay for spend most of their time criminalizing masculinity and denying men basic human and civil rights these days, that's hardly a surprise. Another 25 years of this, and they'll execute the father of a woman who commits murder, because clearly her violence is some man's fault. It's a logical progression in the steady unloading of any shred of responsibility from women, and the constant expansion of the misandry destroying the souls and the lives of most men. Since the husband or sons are presumably who the woman (i.e. the "real" victim) murdered, I would guess that only leaves the father to blame. Maybe they'll just kill some random man on the street instead. After all, to paraphrase a rape victim who accused the wrong man, surely it's some man's fault, so as long as some man (any man) is paying the price, justice is served, right?
Think I'm paranoid? Wait a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 09:45 AM June 13th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right to amend your statement to include "alleged". Women are still entitled to the presumption of innocence...--RandomMan
Sure. But she has *confessed* to the crime. I agree that the law is applied much more leniently to women than to men for the same crime. There's no question about that, or that feminists are determined to make sure that women are protected from responsibility for their behavior. Feminists infantilize women. And, of course, many men do too.
Keep an eye on the Duke rape case. See what if anything happens to the accuser if the prosecution decides to drop the case, or if a jury rules that the accused are not guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 05:10 AM June 13th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I heard FOX News say today, or yesterday, that "Battered Wife Syndrome" is one possible defense, but also that the standard to be acquitted under that is very high. All that being said, when’s the last time you ever heard "Battered Husband Syndrome" mentioned in a court of law or in MSM?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Wonder what the spin will be for