|
Post by fretslider on Nov 30, 2011 3:18:06 GMT -5
I take it you are familiar with The Fritzl case. Elisabeth Fritzl (born April 6, 1966), stated to police in the town of Amstetten, Austria, that she had been held captive for 24 years in a concealed corridor part of the basement area of the family home, a condominium-style apartment complex built by her father, Josef Fritzl (born April 9, 1935), and that Fritzl had physically assaulted, sexually abused, and raped her numerous times during her imprisonment. The incestuous relationship forced upon her by her father resulted in the birth of seven children and one miscarriage. Now suppose after 20 years she decided that her only means of salvation was to kill Fritzel. If she did kill him would it be the wrong thing? Good point Frestslider. While it may not be self defense, I would say it is justifiable homicide. That's my point, there will always be cases, like the Fritzl case, that should be judged against the circumstances in which the killing took place.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Nov 30, 2011 3:20:49 GMT -5
That's nuts, joseph, and you know it. It's not nuts at all. Revenge murder is still murder. By your rationale, I'd have been justified in slaughtering both of my parents. I chose not to. Sympathetic murderers are still murderers. No, in the case I cited it would have meant escape, freedom and a cessation of very long-term abuse.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 10:54:48 GMT -5
Good point Frestslider. While it may not be self defense, I would say it is justifiable homicide. That's my point, there will always be cases, like the Fritzl case, that should be judged against the circumstances in which the killing took place. We agree on that point. In fact, totally agree.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 10:57:18 GMT -5
It's not nuts at all. Revenge murder is still murder. By your rationale, I'd have been justified in slaughtering both of my parents. I chose not to. Sympathetic murderers are still murderers. No, in the case I cited it would have meant escape, freedom and a cessation of very long-term abuse. Again, we agree. The victim has nowhere to turn because of ignorance and fear. She believes that if she runs away, she will be caught, and she could be severely punished or killed. The ONLY option to her, is to kill. There are many cases like that, including those of abused wives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 11:50:49 GMT -5
No, in the case I cited it would have meant escape, freedom and a cessation of very long-term abuse. Assuming you believe her. It's not her call. At least not if she were in California.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 11:51:48 GMT -5
there will always be cases, like the Fritzl case, that should be judged against the circumstances in which the killing took place. No they shouldn't. Murder is murder. She's no different than any gangbanger seeking revenge for having been slighted.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 30, 2011 11:53:25 GMT -5
The case I was remembering was local to my little part of the world.
The husband was very abusive, especially when he was drinking, but put on a false face as the nicest guy around for the neighbors and outside world in general. His wife covered for him because there were two children - school aged - and she didn't want them to be embarrassed in front of their peers (common mindset, btw).
One weekend, she told him she had talked to a lawyer about a divorce. He didn't take it well and started drinking on Friday night. By late saturday night, he was in some black world of his own and got out (and loaded) his gun. He told his wife he was tired and needed to rest but when he woke up he would shoot and kill her and the children.
She sat, afraid to move for a long time as he slept restlessly ... rousing every little while to tell her his intentions all over again.
Finally, he seemed to be sound asleep and she tried to slip the gun out of his hand. Just as she had it, he woke up and yelled at her. Anndddd ... she shot him and he died.
I don't think she had time to think .. just reacted .. already sure he would kill them all.
She was sentenced to several years but (I think) ended up serving only four.
The whole situation was a tragedy. She should have taken the children and run away long before things got so bad.
Who has an opinion about this one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 11:55:38 GMT -5
?? Justifiable Homicide The United States' concept of justifiable homicide in criminal law stands on the dividing line between an excuse, justification and an exculpation. It is different from other forms of homicide in that due to certain circumstances the homicide is justified as preventing greater harm to innocents. A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide That's Wikipedia, not California law. How about quoting California Penal Code Sec. 187 et seq. Note the conspicuous omission of the term "well being."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 12:27:22 GMT -5
The case I was remembering was local to my little part of the world. The husband was very abusive, especially when he was drinking, but put on a false face as the nicest guy around for the neighbors and outside world in general. His wife covered for him because there were two children - school aged - and she didn't want them to be embarrassed in front of their peers (common mindset, btw). One weekend, she told him she had talked to a lawyer about a divorce. He didn't take it well and started drinking on Friday night. By late saturday night, he was in some black world of his own and got out (and loaded) his gun. He told his wife he was tired and needed to rest but when he woke up he would shoot and kill her and the children. She sat, afraid to move for a long time as he slept restlessly ... rousing every little while to tell her his intentions all over again. Finally, he seemed to be sound asleep and she tried to slip the gun out of his hand. Just as she had it, he woke up and yelled at her. Anndddd ... she shot him and he died. I don't think she had time to think .. just reacted .. already sure he would kill them all. She was sentenced to several years but (I think) ended up serving only four. The whole situation was a tragedy. She should have taken the children and run away long before things got so bad. Who has an opinion about this one? If the killing was justified, she shouldn't have stood trial in the first place. I don't see how we can properly punish murder on moral grounds if we keep making exceptions to the rule. That is why murder is so underpunished in this country. We do not regard the lives of the slain in very high esteem at all. As long as a murderer has an excuse, his/her victim is just more meat to put in the ground and forget about.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 12:32:24 GMT -5
The case I was remembering was local to my little part of the world. The husband was very abusive, especially when he was drinking, but put on a false face as the nicest guy around for the neighbors and outside world in general. His wife covered for him because there were two children - school aged - and she didn't want them to be embarrassed in front of their peers (common mindset, btw). One weekend, she told him she had talked to a lawyer about a divorce. He didn't take it well and started drinking on Friday night. By late saturday night, he was in some black world of his own and got out (and loaded) his gun. He told his wife he was tired and needed to rest but when he woke up he would shoot and kill her and the children. She sat, afraid to move for a long time as he slept restlessly ... rousing every little while to tell her his intentions all over again. Finally, he seemed to be sound asleep and she tried to slip the gun out of his hand. Just as she had it, he woke up and yelled at her. Anndddd ... she shot him and he died. I don't think she had time to think .. just reacted .. already sure he would kill them all. She was sentenced to several years but (I think) ended up serving only four. The whole situation was a tragedy. She should have taken the children and run away long before things got so bad. Who has an opinion about this one? Hi Beth, In my opinion, she shouldn't have served any time at all. As I see it, HE had the gun, and she took it away from him. He told her of his intentions, so she killed him to protect herself and her childrem. It was a clear case of self-defense. Akamai
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 12:37:41 GMT -5
JP> If the killing was justified, she shouldn't have stood trial in the first place.
Akamai> It is up to the courts to decide if it was justified or not. Therefore a trial is needed.
JP> I don't see how we can properly punish murder on moral grounds if we keep making exceptions to the rule.
Akamai> That is murder. Sometimes, there is a very fine line between murder and a justifiable killing.
JP> That is why murder is so underpunished in this country.
Akamai> Actually, it isn't only murder. MOST crimes go underpunished in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 13:03:56 GMT -5
It is up to the courts to decide if it was justified or not. No it's not. The decision to go to trial is the district attorney's. there is a very fine line between murder and a justifiable killing. Not according to California law. MOST crimes go underpunished in this country. They always will be, as long as murder is underpunished.
|
|
|
Post by akamai on Nov 30, 2011 14:21:03 GMT -5
JP> No it's not. The decision to go to trial is the district attorney's.
AK> Yes, it is. The DA decides on whether or not he has a prosecutable case. Even if the DA believes it is murder, if he feels he cannot get a conviction in a trial, he is not going to take the case to court. If he believes that it is self-defense or justifiable, he will still have to take the case to court if the evidence points to a possible murder.
JP> They always will be, as long as murder is underpunished
AK> There will always be murder even if you kill all convicted murderers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 14:24:14 GMT -5
If he believes that it is self-defense or justifiable, he will still have to take the case to court if the evidence points to a possible murder. Nonsense. He goes to trial convinced that a suspect is guilty of murder. If he isn't convinced, the suspect doesn't go to trial -- at least where I live. There will always be murder even if you kill all convicted murderers. There won't be nearly as many. The problem is that people like you exist, people who believe murder is not that big a deal.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Nov 30, 2011 14:36:36 GMT -5
If the killing was justified, she shouldn't have stood trial in the first place.
I don't see how we can properly punish murder on moral grounds if we keep making exceptions to the rule.
That is why murder is so underpunished in this country.
We do not regard the lives of the slain in very high esteem at all. As long as a murderer has an excuse, his/her victim is just more meat to put in the ground and forget about.
Many people in the community were shocked she was tried and served any time at all. The general thought was that her father-in-law was very well to do and had a great deal of influence in this area. Some members of her husband's family were supportive and protective of her at first ... lasted a couple of weeks, then the FIL spoke out against her publicly and the support melted away. Her parents (school teachers) took the children into their home and by the time she was released, they were 18 and over.
I also remember the minister's wife with young children who shot and killed him .. then took the children and left for a long slo-mo car chase through several states. She served a short sentence to.
Somehow, I don't think a cruel, abusive husband/father deserves a lot of pity .. even as a victim. These kinds of people victimize others for years and leave shattered lives as surely as murders do.
jmo
|
|