F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
While I see what your saying the fact that the county considered him still on duty does mean that she hit not only her husband but also a cop.
- Status
O
otm
Guest
The fact that she did not succeed in killing him is not the operative fact; it is that she used an object that is capable.
An incompetent attorney would argue that because it did not result in serious injury, that it was therefore not capable of inflicting serious injury; she might have grounds to appeal the conviction she would get after a jury trial not on the basis that it was not a weapon capable of inflicting serious injury, but on the grounds that her attorney was incompetent.
Apply a little logic to the issue; your statement would mean that a .22 pistol was not a weapon capable of inflicting serious injury because as she brandished it towrds him, it went off and shot him in the leg causing a minor flesh wound. It only resulted in a couple stitches, therefore it was not “capable of inflicting serious injury or death”
Assault with a deadly weapon is not determined by the injury inflicted, but by the potential to kill.
A frying pan is eminently capable of killing.
Assault with a frying pan is therefore assault with a weapon capable of killing; the fact that the injury was slight or serious is not the derterminative factor.
P
pnewton
Guest
Me. I would not have allowed any of this to be known to any other officer friend. Besides not kissing my marriage good-bye, I wouldn’t want it known I was unable prevent an arguement from escalating, or had the sense to walk away when it spiralled out of control, or at very least maintained enough situational awareness to see that my wife had picked up a weapon.
P
pnewton
Guest
Correct, if you ad the phrase “in the manner used”. Firearms are not included in this reasoning because they are specifically listed.
We do not have enough details for a determination of exactly how she struck him or the specific pan used. I am only saying I believe a competant lawyer could easily raise enough questions to prevent her being guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It only takes one line of reasoning in one juror to win.
I know all this is moot and pointless in a plea bargain, though.
O
otm
Guest
Rob’s Wife said:
While I can understand your logic, the difficulty is that you are confusing issues. Intent, in law, does not mean that one had a cold, caluculated, pre-thought out choice of action. Intent is shown simply in the fact that she was conscious, presumed in law to be rational (that is, she would have the duty to prove that she was not rational), picked up the pan, and swung it at a target that was visible to her (in other words, for example, he wasn’t standing behind a sheet used as a temporary door in the pantry and she had no idea of his whereabouts, and swung at the sheet with no intention of hitting anyone - just physically expressing her rage at an inanimate object). She was in a rage; another term that is often used is blood-lust. The rage might possibly reduce her conviction from Murder 1 to Murder 2, had she killed him; it might also impact sentancing, if there were not mandatory sentancing for the crime. But the intent was absolutely, no question at all, sufficient to get her convicted.
One does not ordinarily swing at another human being with a frying pan. Only she is capable of telling us whether she intended to only do serious harm, or if she intended to kill him, but as I have stated previously, had she either intentionally or accidentally rotated that pan either as she picked it up or swung it, we would probably be talking about either a dead husband, or one with serious potential for permanent brain damage.
There seem to be a number of emotional responses in this thread indicating either that people really don’t think this was serious, or are responding emotionally to her in terms of saying that doing an act which has the potential to kill is ok if 1) you are a woman and 2) you don’t really do much damage.
Whether the pan was swung by a man or a woman seems to be the basis of response; I strongly suspect that if it were a man swinging, everyone would be saying that the laws about domestic violence were designed to protect women, 4 years of jail is hardly enough, and she needs to leave him.
And because she swung the pan, he is now a bad husband because he is not forgiving her for Attempted Murder or Assault with a Deadly Weapon and what he really needed to do was be a better husband.
Perhaps some would be lead to the conclusion that she did not want him dead because she only hit him once (most people, if still capable of moving after the first blow, are going to exit stage right promptly, as they would understand that they might be killed if she was allowed to swing again at the head), but that is not a logical conclusion from the facts given. It is presuming that results show intent; the intent is in the act, not the results of the act.
The State does not have to show a statement from the perpetrator saying that they intended to kill, or maim the victim; all they have to show is the act. The act is what convicts, not the result. If she had picked up a loaded gun, aimed it at him and pulled the triger and it misfired, they would not need a statement from her that she intended to kill him; the act itself would be sufficient.
Her sentance is not based on his fear of her, or his capability to move on in life; it is based on the severity of the crime, the fact that people in domestic disputes are generally in a rage when they act, they have a tendency to repeat that behavior when treated leniently by the Courts, and the fact that the legislature, in reviewing year of domestic violence, and the repeated offenses, often leading up to a killing of the spouse, have decided that mandatory sentances for violent domestic abuse will result in mandatory jail time.
O
otm
Guest
OK, I wasn’t going to include this, but maybe you will concede that your line of reasoning is not reasoning but emotional reaction.
She was in a rage. She took an object and hit her husband with it. She did something that no one in their right mind would do unless they were either considering at that immediate moment inflicting serious bodily harm to the other, or killing them.
Anyone who gets that far into a rage has crossed a line that society says is an absolute line.
Anyone who gets that far into a rage and acts in that manner is more than slightly capable of repeating the offense again; perhaps the second time with greater skill, or greater luck, and accomplishing what the act is intended to do - either maim or kill.
Anyone who gets that far into a rage and has crossed such a serious line has now broken a barrier - most of us would simply not get that far, even if we were in a rage; there is something in our makeup and upbringing that stops us short. To put it into Catholic language, once you have committed a mortal sin the first time, the second time is easier. You have broken that taboo or barrier.
Not responding to such a serious violation of his person puts him in greater danger that she may succeed. If you don’t believe this, start reading about domestic violence.
Lest you think I am simply blowing smoke, or just don’t get it - I practiced law for 12 years; that included 6 years of criminal defense, including two murder cases, and 12 years of “domestic relations”, the legal euphamism for divorce. While I was practicing, an attorney for a wife in a divoce case was killed in the Multnomah County courthouse by the husband; he also took a shot at the judge and missed, and then killed himself.
Subsequent to that I had a case representing a husband in a divorce in which a restraining order had been filed against him. They reconciled. 6 months later they separated. Within a couple of weeks (and while I was representing him) he took a gun and put three rounds in her back, killing her, then turned the gun on himself and put two rounds in his chest, committing suicide.
I am tring to keep a civil tongue in my head as we discuss this case, but I am absolutely appalled at some of the responses herein. Some of you folks don’t take domestic abuse seriously, or at least don’t if it is the wife doing the abuse. Some of you don’t seem to think this could easily have bordered on a murder case, and don’t seem to see that if she did this once, she is more likely to do it a second time.
I have the highest respect for marriage, for the sacrament of marriage, for the covenant between husband and wife. I also have enough life experience to know that some of the legal living situations we have might be called marriage on the face of it, but have nothing to do with marriage as the Church understands it, have nothing to do with the sacrament other than that the form was gone through, and that for the safety and/or sanity of at least one, if not both of the partners, a divorce is the only solution.
I am also dead square in favor of mandatory sentancing for abusers, and I don’t give a fig what sex they are. Abuse is deadly. Get a clue. I did, the hard way.
P
pnewton
Guest
I have been accused of being non-reasoning, emotional, stupid, and clueless? Why? Because I do not agree with you on a few legal definitions? I could be wrong, (or you could be) but that is a minor point of searching back through case law on the subject.
Do you resent the fact that I trust juries and judges to determine sentence as opposed to politicians?
I have no emotional attachment to the issue as you presuppose. Nor have I ever said I would do nothing or do not take domestic abuse seriously. I just would definitely not do what this man did. In case you still feel the compulsion to convert me, let me advise that you will not, for all the reasons I have previously stated.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
While you may disagree with the legal definitions they are none the less the Law.
As for juries and judges to determine sentences… The only case that juries determine sentences that I am aware of is in capital cases.
As for Judges, with what we have on the bench today, it is becuase of them that the mandatory sentencing laws have been enacted. You may say that is is done by politicians, but I say it is done by the will of the people enacted by those who are elected by the people.
Also, you seem to ignore the fact that this woman made a plea bargin. She admited guilt in open court.
D
Darrel
Guest
Oh Come On,
She cracked him one little boo-boo on his head. I can use a can of soup to kill someone or a ball point pen. Anything can be a lethal weapon. She lost her head and smacked him one in a fight. If she had thrust a knife at him and tried to kill him I would have said to shoot her.
If she was actualy commited this gent would have been hospitalized for sure or at least would have attempted to defend himself. Check out his answer to the grand jury.
I have heard some BS in my life but the above quote takes the cake. Why did he not pull his gun out and tell her to drop the “deadly pan”? The above quote is called letting your wife swing in the wind.
-D
C
CatholicCid
Guest
I believe he said he put the gun away during the argument
+Uses Ctrl+F+
Yep:
Though: Could a pan be used to kill someone… Yes, if swung hard enough…
I’d think hard enough to break the skin would be considered quite hard… Especially with a pan…
M
mjdonnelly
Guest
Not allowed to carry a gun, not a police officer, just an auxilliary.
M
msh
Guest
I’m not one to argue law, because I don’t know a lot about those sorts of things, but I am preplexed in what the original poster is asking of us. He came to the forum to ask what the Church would think about this situation.
This signals to me he obviously revers the faith in some way, and that he is looking for guidance.
Then he goes on to say that the statement that tipped off this avalanche was that he felt his wife sitting in the church praying wasn’t as effective as his brother fighting hand to hand over in Iraq. He asks for the official opinion of the Church, and yet finds that prayer (As a church, within church, etc) is not an effective means to achieving peace or aiding those who are working toward peace in times of war. That really sounds a little silly to me. Why would someone care about what their Church thought of a situation within their family, if they didn’t believe in the power that prayer to God has?
Personally, I find fault with both parties. Both should have stepped away, regrouped and not let this argument escalate to this degree. The act of physical violence was wrong, the act of demeaning one another was wrong, and the further act of absolutely no regret over extreme anger and loss of the marriage is wrong. It could all have been avoided, and that’s a great lesson for the rest of us. Sometimes the smallest things we do can entice a very bad reaction in someone else, and while we don’t need to walk on eggshells, if we’re just mindful and respectful during disagreements then maybe some of these situations (not all, obviously) could be curbed.
I really feel for both you and your wife, and I hope that even though these events have passed in this manner that you both can let forgiveness into your hearts and both learn from this in your own ways.
This signals to me he obviously revers the faith in some way, and that he is looking for guidance.
Then he goes on to say that the statement that tipped off this avalanche was that he felt his wife sitting in the church praying wasn’t as effective as his brother fighting hand to hand over in Iraq. He asks for the official opinion of the Church, and yet finds that prayer (As a church, within church, etc) is not an effective means to achieving peace or aiding those who are working toward peace in times of war. That really sounds a little silly to me. Why would someone care about what their Church thought of a situation within their family, if they didn’t believe in the power that prayer to God has?
Personally, I find fault with both parties. Both should have stepped away, regrouped and not let this argument escalate to this degree. The act of physical violence was wrong, the act of demeaning one another was wrong, and the further act of absolutely no regret over extreme anger and loss of the marriage is wrong. It could all have been avoided, and that’s a great lesson for the rest of us. Sometimes the smallest things we do can entice a very bad reaction in someone else, and while we don’t need to walk on eggshells, if we’re just mindful and respectful during disagreements then maybe some of these situations (not all, obviously) could be curbed.
I really feel for both you and your wife, and I hope that even though these events have passed in this manner that you both can let forgiveness into your hearts and both learn from this in your own ways.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
I do see problems with the OP’s actions, and a possible explanation for a double standard.
An abused woman may have to call upon the police in order to prevent her husband from doing worse, because a woman may not be physically capable of stopping her husband. On the other hand a husband should be able to put a stop to things on his own. Or so the thinking goes.
Police and government exist to solve problems we cannot resolve on our own. Police and government are not there to mete out vengeance on our behalf.
I think this is an excellent case to highlight that the “equality” feminism seeks is really a bunch of crud. Maybe, just maybe double standards are good, and appropriate, because the two sexes are different.
Maybe men should hesitate to call the authorities on their abusive wives because, once forwarned, a man should be able to disarm a wife (prudence should be excersized according to the weapon she brandishes). Whereas women should feel less guilty about calling the authorities.
But to be fair, there perhaps should be double standards applied in men’s favor. We get to work outside without a shirt on, women have to stay clothed.
Deal?
An abused woman may have to call upon the police in order to prevent her husband from doing worse, because a woman may not be physically capable of stopping her husband. On the other hand a husband should be able to put a stop to things on his own. Or so the thinking goes.
Police and government exist to solve problems we cannot resolve on our own. Police and government are not there to mete out vengeance on our behalf.
I think this is an excellent case to highlight that the “equality” feminism seeks is really a bunch of crud. Maybe, just maybe double standards are good, and appropriate, because the two sexes are different.
Maybe men should hesitate to call the authorities on their abusive wives because, once forwarned, a man should be able to disarm a wife (prudence should be excersized according to the weapon she brandishes). Whereas women should feel less guilty about calling the authorities.
But to be fair, there perhaps should be double standards applied in men’s favor. We get to work outside without a shirt on, women have to stay clothed.
Deal?
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
Black Jaque:
What about the man who is married to a cop. His wife would be highly trained in hand to hand combat.
And then you also must not live in New York. Women have the right in law to go topless in public.
If the OP did disarm his wife and she got hurt in the process, looking at society today, is there any doubt that it would have been him who went to jail?
I would make the deal but you make too many over generalizations.
What about the man who is married to a cop. His wife would be highly trained in hand to hand combat.
And then you also must not live in New York. Women have the right in law to go topless in public.
If the OP did disarm his wife and she got hurt in the process, looking at society today, is there any doubt that it would have been him who went to jail?
O
otm
Guest
It goes much deeper than"not agreeing on a few legal definitions". You seem to have the postion that if a husband hit his wife with a frying pan and only broke the skin it would be aserious offense, but if a wife hit her husband with the same pan and only broke the skin it would be no big deal, she should get off scot free, there was no crime committed, or if it was, it most certainly wa only a very minor issue that is best handled by “being loving”.
You seem to have no comprehension of what people do in a rage, and furhter, no comprehension that when people commit an act that on its face fits the definition of attempted murder, during a rage, that they are then more likely to esclate the act when the next rage occurs, and the next rage, and the next rage…
It is absolutely true that there is way more abuse reported which is committed by mena against women than there is in the reverse, and I have no doubt whatsoever that even if every physical abuse committed agains men by women were reported (you have said you would not report it), abuse by men against women would far exceed that of women against men.
None of that has anything whatsoever, in any way, shape or form to do with the fact that physical abuse by a woman against a man is just as much a crime as that by a man against a woman, nor does it have anything to do with the fact that serious physical abuse in alomst all instances leads to more serious physical abuse, and all too often ends only when the abuser kills the spouse.
You are treating this as if it was no big deal. I can only assume you have had no contact with physical abuse in a marriage of someone else and are judging this from the position for “no harm, no foul”. I seriously doubt you would treat it thus if the roles were reversed, and you need to ask yourself why. Your answer that the husband as a husband should treat it differently is at best naieve.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
ByzCath,
My point was more that double standards may actually be appropriate. Feminism has inculcated us with this notion that equality is best. But no one really seems happy with equality, we all want to be treated according to our needs and abilities and in our situations.
For example: If my wife clocked me with a fry pan, and I was able to retreat and gather my senses, I would think I could then walk back into the room and wrest the pan from her, rendering her harmless. Without help from the authorities. This would be entirely different if I happened to be in a wheelchair recovering from an auto accident.
So the standard that I would apply to my self, as far as when to seek help, would change as the situation changed. This is different from the one-size-fits-all equality thinking we’ve been taught to think.
My point was more that double standards may actually be appropriate. Feminism has inculcated us with this notion that equality is best. But no one really seems happy with equality, we all want to be treated according to our needs and abilities and in our situations.
For example: If my wife clocked me with a fry pan, and I was able to retreat and gather my senses, I would think I could then walk back into the room and wrest the pan from her, rendering her harmless. Without help from the authorities. This would be entirely different if I happened to be in a wheelchair recovering from an auto accident.
So the standard that I would apply to my self, as far as when to seek help, would change as the situation changed. This is different from the one-size-fits-all equality thinking we’ve been taught to think.
F
Fergal
Guest
If you truly love your wife, how are you gonna exist without her by your side for 5 years? To me you seem distant cold and calculating in reference to her.
This seperation would kill me not the fryin’ pan. And yes there are times when I have deserved the fryin’ pan.
This seperation would kill me not the fryin’ pan. And yes there are times when I have deserved the fryin’ pan.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Because pulling your gun out would be an indication of the intent to use deadly force. He may have been justified in doing so, but he wouldn’t be obligated. As a husband, you very well may be making the right choice in letting your wife kill you in a rage. Of course the best option is to flee - which saves both his life and his wife’s potential guilt of committing murder.
Remember, husband’s job is to get wife into heaven. If wife is about to kill you, she is not likely in a state of grace. If your only choice is to kill or be killed, being killed means your wife will survive another day. Another day means another opportunity to repent. Repentence gets you heaven-bound.
What he did after he secured his own safety is what seems more like revenge than love.
P
pnewton
Guest
You have no idea what my postition is, based on how much you have misrepresented it. Either that or you deliberately chose exaggeration. On the bright side, you encouraged me to change my signature a few days ago.
B
Black_Jaque
Guest
Well if you want to know where you went wrong, BioCath, here it is. Was the financial “prize” worth it?
Oh and there’s
Anger is one of the Deadly sins. So you wanted to know if you were “in the right”? No. But you’re not entirely in the wrong either.
Think about what would be best for HER. Killing her husband can land her in Hell. That’s not good. Stewing away in prison, building hate for her husband can also land her in Hell.
Is there any middle ground here? Any possible way that you could have lovingly allowed her to suffer the consequences of her actions, and suffered alongside her? I don’t have answers to that.
But you can start now by extending an olive branch to her. Start visiting her in prison. Write her. Forgive her. Suffer with her (stay chaste). She’ll probably burn the first dozen or so letters, but she’s got plenty of time to think things over.
I know you don’t feel like telling her anything nice. But love isn’t what you do when you feel all warm and fuzzy about someone. Love is what you do when you have to gather every ounce of self-mastery to go against your feelings and do what is right.
- Status