If i threatened my wife as such, I would hope she would be smart enough to leave my sorry a**.

 

I guess that all depends on what she was told would happen if she ever did.

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

 

I would agree and I think it happens to both parties in a relationship. I've heard men degrade/verbally abuse women and vice versa. That door goes both ways.

She was convicted of murder, was she not?

 

Was 1st degree manslaughter at one time, however, a full pardon wipes that clean from the record...so, no she wasn't convicted of murder.

I read somewhere that, statistically speaking, the chances of a woman getting killed by an abusive husband is when she chooses to leave him. According to the news, he had just found out that she was talking to a divorce lawyer.

 

If he had been physically and emotionally abusive to her during their marriage, and if he told her, as reported, he would kill their children if she did not kill herself, and put a gun to her head, I would say it might be justified. He might not have been threatening her at the moment she shot him, but her past experiences with him, may have made her believe that he would make good on his threats. Women who suffer abuse know it is not as simple as "just call the police," particularly when your spouse has the "great guy" image that he portrayed outside the home. He may very well have pushed her to the point where she truly thought it was her only solution.

 

I am not saying this particular case was or was not justified, just that I can see where it could be. No one really know what goes on in other people's homes.

Maybe because I am closer to the situation than most people on here commenting about it, but I am extremely skeptical and hesitant to assume that Cheryl was justified in shooting Bob. There is much more to the case that stayed out of the court room, and some of which I am sure would lead others to be a little less willing to champion Cheryl as a hero of domestic violence victims. The lack of physical evidence, the fact that she turned away a responding officer, and the lack of testimony from the kids all draw question marks as to the legitimacy of her story.

 

Also, as BBrain carelessly attempted to do early, don't conclude from my skepticism that I somehow disregard or don't care about domestic violence. That is an irresponsible, and quite frankly a blatantly false conclusion.

Was at one time, however, a full pardon wipes that clean from the record...so, no she wasn't convicted of murder.

 

Gotta love technicalities. They are somehow able to override the realities of what happened.

Actually, I was referring to the strategy of rebutting someone's argument by saying that they don't understand the argument, was a garbage strategy. But carry on.

 

Also, are you really going to sit there and say that just because I haven't been put in the same circumstances that she was, that I can't have an opinion, or am unqualified to comment on the situation? Really? how many issues have you commented on that you have never been apart of? Have you ever been involved in the foreign policy decision making process? Have you ever been tasked with dealing with situations similar to those that face our LEO? it is asinine to assert that just because I or anyone else haven't been involved in a particular situation, somehow means that we don't know or understand a situation. If you want that to be your qualification for understanding an issue, then I look forward to only seeing your interjections on topics which you have been associated with. I suspect that wont be the case though.

 

 

I also feel like the act of assaulting has a pretty straight forward definition. I am sure that sleeping does not fall under that definition under any circumstance.

 

I won't say you can't have an opinion, you certainly can and do. I will state that based on your opinions you are likely unqualified to understand the premise behind your argument, because your vision is clouded.

 

This situation differs from having an opinion about international politics in that it deals specifically with an individual and the specific conditions, emotions and actions that can really only be fully understood by either the person in the exact shoes, those that have been in similar shoes / situations, or those that have had personal experience with these situations.

 

In this particular situation, I'm pretty sure that you will be satisfied that my "interjection" is on a topic that I have been "associated" with.

Maybe because I am closer to the situation than most people on here commenting about it, but I am extremely skeptical and hesitant to assume that Cheryl was justified in shooting Bob. There is much more to the case that stayed out of the court room, and some of which I am sure would lead others to be a little less willing to champion Cheryl as a hero of domestic violence victims. The lack of physical evidence, the fact that she turned away a responding officer, and the lack of testimony from the kids all draw question marks as to the legitimacy of her story.

 

Also, as BBrain carelessly attempted to do early, don't conclude from my skepticism that I somehow disregard or don't care about domestic violence. That is an irresponsible, and quite frankly a blatantly false conclusion.

 

So you were friends with Bob? I can understand now why you are so vehemently against Cheryl in this case. Yeah, we all heard what a great guy Bob was. That doesn't mean he was such a great guy in private.

Was at one time, however, a full pardon wipes that clean from the record...so, no she wasn't convicted of murder.

Nope, She was convicted of first degree manslaughter.

Don't try to play the fact that a pardon wipes out what she did. She was still convicted of manslaughter which means she still killed her husband. She just now has the right to vote and own a firearm and is no longer considered to be a felon.

So you were friends with Bob? I can understand now why you are so vehemently against Cheryl in this case. Yeah, we all heard what a great guy Bob was. That doesn't mean he was such a great guy in private.

 

I wouldn't say that I am "vehemently" against Cheryl, and my association wasn't with Bob. I just don't agree with justifying murder in cases of alleged physical abuse. Especially when there is no hard evidence that suggest physical abuse took place.

Maybe because I am closer to the situation than most people on here commenting about it, but I am extremely skeptical and hesitant to assume that Cheryl was justified in shooting Bob. There is much more to the case that stayed out of the court room, and some of which I am sure would lead others to be a little less willing to champion Cheryl as a hero of domestic violence victims. The lack of physical evidence, the fact that she turned away a responding officer, and the lack of testimony from the kids all draw question marks as to the legitimacy of her story.

 

Also, as BBrain carelessly attempted to do early, don't conclude from my skepticism that I somehow disregard or don't care about domestic violence. That is an irresponsible, and quite frankly a blatantly false conclusion.

 

Don't assume that because you live in the City of Beautiful Homes that you have an exclusive inside track on the situation either....you don't. I have only pointed out that you have obvious bias because of that relationship.

 

Also, I don't see or recall where I ever carelessly or falsely accused you of not caring about domestic violence....I did say that your vision is likely clouded on this particular case, and I will stick to that based on your comments.

Maybe because I am closer to the situation than most people on here commenting about it, but I am extremely skeptical and hesitant to assume that Cheryl was justified in shooting Bob. There is much more to the case that stayed out of the court room, and some of which I am sure would lead others to be a little less willing to champion Cheryl as a hero of domestic violence victims. The lack of physical evidence, the fact that she turned away a responding officer, and the lack of testimony from the kids all draw question marks as to the legitimacy of her story.

 

Also, as BBrain carelessly attempted to do early, don't conclude from my skepticism that I somehow disregard or don't care about domestic violence. That is an irresponsible, and quite frankly a blatantly false conclusion.

 

You state that there is more to the case that stayed out of the court room, care to share that information because I am sure that those "facts" might sway people one way or another.

Don't assume that because you live in the City of Beautiful Homes that you have an exclusive inside track on the situation either....you don't. I have only pointed out that you have obvious bias because of that relationship.

 

Also, I don't see or recall where I ever carelessly or falsely accused you of not caring about domestic violence....I did say that your vision is likely clouded on this particular case, and I will stick to that based on your comments.

 

If you think that that is my source for an "exclusive inside track on the situation", then so be it.

You state that there is more to the case that stayed out of the court room, care to share that information because I am sure that those "facts" might sway people one way or another.

 

I have been advised not to.

Nope, She was convicted of first degree manslaughter.

Don't try to play the fact that a pardon wipes out what she did. She was still convicted of manslaughter which means she still killed her husband. She just now has the right to vote and own a firearm and is no longer considered to be a felon.

No, I understand she was convicted of 1st degree MS, not murder, hence the reason for credit and pardon...wasn't implying that.

 

Never once have I denied that she pulled the trigger, anywhere. A pardon is a pardon though, just like the conviction on the other end, opposite sides of the same coin. If we convict and we have a pardon system in place, then we have to acknowledge that as much as the conviction, right ?

 

Or do we only place our belief in the criminal justice system when it works out to our own preconcieved ideas of justice and dismiss the rest?