It is abundantly clear to me that domestic abuse, especially the impact of emotional and verbal abuse is grossly misunderstood.

There are many people in the situation that she said she was in and some worse than hers and find away out, she chose to kill her husband who has kids, mother, father, and other siblings that for the past 7plus years couldnt spend the holidays with guess thats ok.

 

I am not saying she was in a bad situation but did she do everything she could to get out of the situation you or i do not know that answer but to kill her husband in cold blood should not have been an option unless it was in self defense at thatg time and it wasnt, HE WAS SLEEPING.

I'd like to have heard what the kids might have said if they were allowed to testify.

And for those of you hung up on the "he was sleeping" part of it, would you have felt differently if she'd have whacked him if he was awake?

Uhhh, no she's not....

 

Would you somehow feel better if one of the kids came out and confirmed her story ?

 

I get you cannot possibly fathom a situation like this, you've obviously been sheltered from this kind of life and with that limited view can only see it from your perspective.....there is always another side to the coin, even if we don't want to see it.

 

What did she spend time in jail for?

And for those of you hung up on the "he was sleeping" part of it, would you have felt differently if she'd have whacked him if he was awake?

 

I would feel entirely different if she had killed him while he was in the act of assaulting her. That would be self defense, and would be a justifiable means for killing him. As it stands, he was not in the act of assaulting her, and what she did is therefore not self defense. Pre-emptive self defense isn't a thing.

 

Other than her words, there is nothing to show that he abused her. No medical records, no indications of signs from neighbors. Nothing. So we are taking the word of a murdered on what happened. The only sign that there relationship may be on the rocks was that she allegedly went to a divorce attorney. That is not enough to insinuate that he was abusive.

 

It seems that, as it pertains to this case on this thread, people are being guided by their emotions, and not their heads. They are taking the word of a murdered, and not looking at the facts. Those who say that there were no other options are wrong. There are always options other than murder. Cue the " you don't understand domestic violence" garbage.

What did she spend time in jail for?

 

She's not a convicted murderer....

I would feel entirely different if she had killed him while he was in the act of assaulting her. That would be self defense, and would be a justifiable means for killing him. As it stands, he was not in the act of assaulting her, and what she did is therefore not self defense. Pre-emptive self defense isn't a thing.

 

 

The "Burning Bed" case showed that a woman CAN be found not guilty of murder even if she kills her abusive husband while he is sleeping.

 

It wasn't applicable here b/c of the lack of proof.

The "Burning Bed" case showed that a woman CAN be found not guilty of murder even if she kills her abusive husband while he is sleeping.

 

It wasn't applicable here b/c of the lack of proof.

 

Which is another indicator that there were no signs of abuse...

I would feel entirely different if she had killed him while he was in the act of assaulting her. That would be self defense, and would be a justifiable means for killing him. As it stands, he was not in the act of assaulting her, and what she did is therefore not self defense. Pre-emptive self defense isn't a thing.

 

Other than her words, there is nothing to show that he abused her. No medical records, no indications of signs from neighbors. Nothing. So we are taking the word of a murdered on what happened. The only sign that there relationship may be on the rocks was that she allegedly went to a divorce attorney. That is not enough to insinuate that he was abusive.

 

It seems that, as it pertains to this case on this thread, people are being guided by their emotions, and not their heads. They are taking the word of a murdered, and not looking at the facts. Those who say that there were no other options are wrong. There are always options other than murder. Cue the " you don't understand domestic violence" garbage.

 

Well at least you maintain consistency....good to see that your emotion on this subject equates understanding of domestic violence as "garbage", speaks volumes about your ability to maintain some type of objectivity.

 

What exactly, by your definition, would be "in the act of assaulting".... ?

 

I will ask you the same question I have posed earlier, slightly different: How many times have you been held captive, fearful for your safety, and had to devise a plan to get out of that situation?

 

If you tell me more than twice, I'll listen to your non-objective drivel, until then, you would appear to just want to insist that your view of domestic violence is right and Cheryl McCafferty's view is wrong....dollars to donuts you have never spent significant time with any victim of domestic violence.

Which is another indicator that there were no signs of abuse...

 

My post was to dispute your theory that killing while in the process of being abused is required.

My post was to dispute your theory that killing while in the process of being abused is required.

 

Yet your post also proved that there was a lack evidence that support she was abused.

Which is another indicator that there were no signs of abuse...

 

No one is arguing that the legal burden of proof was not met, that's how she ended up locked up....that does not mean that "there were no signs". In fact the opposite is true, there would appear to be a good deal of circumstantial evidence that speaks otherwise. To see that, you have to be able to open your eyes and look past your own biases...that's not really happening

Yet your post also proved that there was a lack evidence that support she was abused.

 

My post was not trying to prove anything. It was simply to show that the courts have allowed for women to KILL their abusive husband even while he was sleeping.

No one is arguing that the legal burden of proof was not met, that's how she ended up locked up....that does not mean that "there were no signs". In fact the opposite is true, there would appear to be a good deal of circumstantial evidence that speaks otherwise. To see that, you have to be able to open your eyes and look past your own biases...that's not really happening

 

Correct.

 

As I've posted earlier in this thread when I heard about the death I called a friend of mine and asked "Is that the lady you told me about a year ago that told you to not ask about her bruise on her face because she didn't want to have to lie to you?" The answer was "yes."

 

Obviously, that doesn't meet the legal requirements to convict. It does lend credibility to the belief that she had been abused at least once.