Update in the Mary Winkler Case
The verdict is in for the Mary Winkler case: voluntary manslaughter:
Well, it's about the right length for a woman who blows away her husband--around six years is typical. Apparently, men's lives have little worth in this society if they are taken by a female. How pathetic is that?
Mary Winkler showed no emotion when it was announced Thursday she had been found guilty of voluntary manslaughter in the shooting death of her minister husband.
She was convicted in the death of Matthew Winkler, a popular Church of Christ preacher in the rural West Tennessee town of Selmer.
The prosecution had asked that Mary Winkler be convicted of first-degree murder. But the jury made up of a majority of women settled on the lesser charge after deliberating for eight hours Thursday.
Winkler faces between three and six years in prison when she's sentenced in May. She remains free on bond.
Well, it's about the right length for a woman who blows away her husband--around six years is typical. Apparently, men's lives have little worth in this society if they are taken by a female. How pathetic is that?
posted by Helen at 7:28 PM
61 Comments:
You sound angry with the verdict. How come?
I would be interested in your hunch (given your professional experience) as to whether this woman was actually abused/battered. Not that anything justifies murder, but my own feeling (based on years working with abused children, not the mothers) is that she was abused and desperate. Regardless, she should go to jail, but have you ever seen cases like this where there were mitigating circumstances? The poor kids have had their lives ruined by losing their dad, perhaps they should not lose their mother as well forever. Better a sinner for a mother than no mother. I know that if any man were abusing or threatening me, I would kill him and face the consequences later...Better tried by 12 than carried by 6.
Wait ... mom murders dad, so mom should get off easy because if she pays her just debt to society the kids won't have a parent left? What kind of reasoning is THAT?
She had family and friends. If she was truly in danger, or believed that her kids were in danger, the obvious remedy is to leave the SOB. But the daughter testified that her father had not abused her, and that she had not witnessed violence between her parents until the day that she saw her father dead of a gunshot wound at the hands of her mother.
I'll be interested to see if the bank pursues the fraud charges. What do you want to bet that a couple of thousand dollars is worth more in terms of jail time than a man's life?
"...What kind of reasoning is THAT?"
According to my Jewish friends, it's the definition of chutzpah: e.g., kill your parents and then throw yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan.
Sometimes juries make Solomon-like decisions such as this because they aren't really sure if the defendant is guilty. Technically, they should acquit if they aren't sure but they don't like to see someone go free who they suspect is guilty, so we end up with verdicts like this.
My hunch is that juries have a harder time finding women guilty than men because it seems out-of-character, so they are more likely to end up with verdicts like this.
My hunch is that juries have a harder time finding women guilty than men because it seems out-of-character, so they are more likely to end up with verdicts like this.
In other words, the juries are biased in the favor of women? The numbers support that if you do a little research on conviction rates, sentence length, etc. for male vs. female.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/04/19/winkler.trial/index.html
Unbeleivable. I am flabbergasted.
There are some women out there that would much rather suffer with an abusive husband or kill the abusive husband than wave the white flag of defeat through divorce. Sometimes being an adult is admitting that you are unhappy in your marriage and ending the marriage. I'm not sure I buy this "abused spouse" defense. I see a lot of women complaining about a physically or verbally abusive husband but take no action, either through divorce or getting themselves into counseling. To be honest with you, I don't have much sympathy for these types.
I'm not the least bit surprised. Women manage to avoid responsibility for their actions because society is unwilling to hold them accountable.
Either that, or they are afraid to acknowledge that women are just as evil and f'ed up as men.
Her family and associates stated that they saw bruises, so I believe that she was subject to violence and emotional abuse.
As the ex wife of an abuser I can understand how this happened, although it doesn't make it right.
Everyone thought that her husband was a great guy, but nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors. My ex is a very dangerous man, and the MOST dangerous thing about him is that he presents as a really great, charming, funny guy. Everyone falls for it (including me at the outset). I suspect Mr Winkler may have been the same. Yes divorce would have been the way to go.
I did see Mary laughing and chewing gum in the court room She also seemed to smirk at one point.
So she did have emotions. That was one thing that bothered me. If she did it she has gotten away with it.
If it was an accident then she should go free. With the things ladies are doing or accused of doing to their Children and Husbands now days.
I'm no longer sure who we can call the weaker sex its just scary whats going on.
Three to six years. I bet she gets three.
My guess is that this was a compromise verdict. I cannot imagine that there were not jurors that wanted at least second degree murder, however there were some that probably wanted to acquit, so they met in the middle. It's a travesty of justice in my view, as there are millions of women out there who endure much worst abuse than Mary Winkler but still manage not to shoot their husbands in the back while they sleep.
There are many battered men out there who've been succesfully accused of family violence by their abuser. A DV accusation in a murder trial is fraught with difficulties as women can indeed fake it and a few actually do it. We have no way to tell, at least not yet.
I think bias in favor of women exists. Until we can change society so that a male life has as much value as a female life we will have great unfairness.
i was right, i said 3 - 5 years.
imagine the scene, a man kills his wife, after he claims he was abused, how would you beleive the jury would behave. would they give the man 3 -6 years.
and the bruises is evidence of guilt, i have bruises now, on my arms and legs, have i been abused.. no i have been working in the garden moving bricks and stone, bruises can happen anytime, anywhere. i have bruises that my fiancee gave me, it was an accident. and i have given her some bruises as well. was that abuse. no.. i am just a clumsy sod.
it depends where the bruises are, and how they got there. if i grabbed her and pulled her from a speeding car, her shoulder may have my fingers bruised on her skin. but since we only have her word, we cant just say it definatly was abuse.
Dr. Helen.
As a forensic psychologist, if you had the opportunity to testify in this case, what information would you want to impart to the jury?
The news said she suffered abuse over 10 years.
One thing I don't understand is why in a case like this, one doesn't pick up an audio recorder. The digital ones (which have already been around for years) are small enough to put in your pocket, can record hours of sound (probably more now) and pick up anything in a normal size room. It certainly would be easy to hide somewhere in a room. And it would be a heck of lot better than he said, she said.
That is, if she suffered abuse. If there is nothing to record, than it would make little sense.
Instead of emotional bellyaching, I would like to see what the statistics are on typical murder and manslaughter convictions. Anecdotally, 3 to 6 sounds like the sort of sentence many murderers get these days.
I thought she would get 12. Wrong again.
There was a recent case here in Middle Tennessee where a woman who chained her retarded son and starved him almost to death was convicted of attempted child neglect. The sentencing parameters were 3 to 6, as in this case. The judge did the sentencing and gave her 6 saying he wished he could give her 20. She came up for parole and the parole board denied her request and told her they would never grant her parole, making her serve the entire 6.
I wonder if that will happen here, but I think not.
If I go to Reelfoot Lake and shoot a bald eagle I am liable to get 10 years. Same for an elk at Land Between the Lakes.
There was no testimony, besides the murderer's, that he was abusive. She lied under oath saying that she had no knowledge of guns when a friend testified that she had stated that she had had lessons in using firearms, her own daughter testified that Reverend Winkler never abused anyone in the house.
All things considered, I guess that county is going to start a season on man hunting. Probably in November. Only women need apply for a license.
Trey
anon 8:15: I hate to say this, but I think one reason is that a significant number of abused women don't really want out of the relationship. The reason why is that being in the relationship conveys to them permanent victim status, which totally relieves them of responsibility for their own behavior. I've seen this time and time again now: a woman is abused; her friends and family go to a huge amount of trouble and risk to extract her from the relationship and help her start her life over. What does she do then? Go find another man who will abuse her! Bypassing a lot of better guys to find that man who will once again give her victim status. Because of this, over time, I'm finding myself having less and less sympathy for abused women. That's terrible, but it's the way I see it.
It was a source of fruustration to me when I was younger and single that so many women are attracted to the bottom 5th percentile of males. I got turned down so many times because I was "boring" or "not passionate enough". Of course, what I didn't realize then was that the women that were turning me down were women that I didn't need to be involved with anyway. Nonetheless, it was frustrating.
I'm a happily married man now, and my DW and I have never laid a finger on each other in anger. But she is very fair, and her skin bruises easily. I have a nagging fear that someday she may have to go to the hospital for some unrelated reason, and a doctor will see bruises on her, and...
In the mental health field we used to think of two categories in abusive situations that involve adults: victim or perpetrator.
Now some researchers are realizing that it is more accurate and helpful to consider how much time each person spends in the role of abuser or victim. Some are 50/50, more common is 80/20, and less common is 90/10. I do not think that the research supports 100% in either role.
Now, this is not to say that abuse is acceptable. It is not. And if you are being abused call the police, get it on tape, but for God's sake get out of the relationship and get safe.
Trey
Staying in a "victim mentality" for some is a huge pay off. This means not taking responsibility for your own progress, your own happiness and your own life. The pay off is so much greater choosing a different way of living.
No absolute proof was presented indicating the sexual abuse, apart from Mary's claim. She just as easily could have purchased the wig, heels, and porn if for no other reason than to set up an abuse claim (which is irrelevant anyway, since she never claimed she shot to protect herself while being abused, only after a cooling-off period). Moreover, the jury seems to have ignored the prosecution's success in getting her to admit on the stand that she either lied or deceived in at least seven instances (sometimes repeatedly to the same people). I did find interesting that she denied her original statement that Matthew, after being shot, asked "Why?" and that she could only respond, "I'm sorry." Her later denial of these comments fits with her discrediting her daughter's claim that her Daddy was groaning on the floor--for both showed that, if indeed the shooting was an accident, Mary nonetheless left him to die without calling for emergency aid. Her then driving to another state and taking the shotgun and tackle-box of shells with her indicate guilt through a removal of incriminating evidence from the scene (remember she had already told her daughter that "a man" had shot her father).
If she gets the three-year sentence, half could be spent out of prison and, given time served (five months), Mary Winkler might only serve 13 months in prison.
Ay ay ay. Look, anonyboysandgirls, Dr. Helen's irritation has nothing to do with the validity of a given defense as a rule, though it has something to do with the potential to falsify a given defense. This is about giving justice in equal measure. This is about not giving a break to murderers.
Look, I could do pages on this one, but it's not my blog. Just consider the circumstances, the various facts of the case (do not forget what dr. jono said), and so on. But first, switch the genders. And then try to tell me with a straight face that you expect a verdict of less than 6 years.
If reason and a grasp of the obvious don't do it for you, there are plenty of perfectly good statistics out there that will spell it out in no uncertain terms.
"My ex is a very dangerous man, and the MOST dangerous thing about him is that he presents as a really great, charming, funny guy."
Very true, and in this case the man was a professional at presenting himself as a saint.
But then too, there are plenty of people who are professionals at presneting themsleves as wounded litle victims.
Not that anything justifies murder, but...
You have no problem empathizing with the murderer right?
There are millions of people in situations far worse than her. Yet they don't feel the need to off someone. The smart ones just buy a bus ticket and never look back.
"But first, switch the genders. And then try to tell me with a straight face that you expect a verdict of less than 6 years."
Exactly.
But of course I expected all of this. Just enough tweaking of her story and a sprinkling of abuse allegations to get her a "compromise" verdict.
If the Betty Broderick case, one of the most glaring instances of revenge-motivated, premeditated killing that I've ever seen, could end in first a mistrial and then a second-degree sympathy verdict (they even tried to wedge the abuse thing into that one, even though she and ex had been divorced for some time), anything is possible.
Anne
"My ex is a very dangerous man, and the MOST dangerous thing about him is that he presents as a really great, charming, funny guy."
This is a pretty good description of the typical sociopath. Glad you got away from him.
Back to the main topic:
There will be verdicts like this one so long as people sympathize with vigilante justice. Who doesn't want to see a vile abuser of women "get his?" At least in some secret corner of his or her mind?
The problem, of course, as with all vigilante justice, is that the deceased never got his own day in court. That's why we carefully distinguish self-defense from vigilantism, and regard the former as justifiable and even commendable while regarding the latter as premeditated murder.
Or should. This jury appears to have had difficulties with the concept that they couldn't overcome. To an extent, as I hinted above, this is human nature -- and so there is no perfect "solution."
It does not help that the accumulation of rage is regarded by many as a form of mental disease rather than an indulgence in evil. Other applications of this observation I leave as an exercise for the student.
To the people who wonder why an abused spouse doesn't just "Buy a bus ticket" etc please study battered spouse syndrome. It is not that simple. Gradual brainwashing occurs. People of all ilks can be gradually brainwashed.....one doesn't have to be defective in some way for it to work, and don't think it would never work on you either.
I have been in an emotionally abusive situation. My partner never laid a finger on me....far too smart for that. After I left that person it took years before I was thinking straight again. The sequence goes "Charm, Confuse, Isolate, Abuse". It is gradual and ongoing....and the longer you stay the less confidence you have in your abilities and perceptions. Once the confusion sets in then comes clinical depression, exhaustion, numbness. I became almost afraid to leave my house....from an outgoing professional woman working overseas, to a wreck in the space of 14 years.
Manipulators are so very confusing until you learn to spot their tactics, and they are GOOD at what they do. This article helped me a great deal...
"Dealing with manipulative people"...
http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing11.html
I know I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain the situation to those who have never been there, but no matter. I know what happened and understand it, but am lucky - I escaped and recovered.
By the way, I read that Mrs Winkler was seen by people at the church with bruises of the "black eye" variety. I have no way of knowing whether she is telling the truth or not, as with any trial.
Everyone have a good day. The sun is shining here!
There are millions of people in situations far worse than her. Yet they don't feel the need to off someone.
Amen! Purple Avenger
She shot him in the back while he slept, for Pete's sake! She didn't call 911, she gathered up her children and fled.
I have a wonderful husband who is not and has never been, by any stretch of the imagination, abusive. But no doubt if I got on my pity pot I could coax a few incidents over the course of our 30 year marriage into convincing myself that he was a dirty, rotten abuser and that I was the most put upon woman in the world. Has he ever yelled at me in anger? Uh, yeah. (Have I ever yelled at HIM in anger, or acted out in passive aggressive ways? oops ... yes, but I don't want to talk about me ... it's all about what a beast HE is!) Have there been periods of time when he was "in the mood" more often than I was, and at times I felt put upon by his amorous advances? Sure. It's common when you have a young family. Men view this as rejection, and try to spice things up in ways that we women don't necessarily find sexy. That's clueness and miscommunication, not abuse.
No doubt that family could have benefitted from some sensible family counselling. However, nothing I heard from her on the witness stand convinced me that she was a genuinely abused woman, especially to the point where her only option was to shoot him in the back while he slept. Indeed, parts of her story weren't credible at all.
Related to this issue and being played out in public is the custody battle between Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger. The latest episode is just pathetic when Baldwin lashes out at his 12-year old daughter who I think is innocent and should be kept out of this fight. I went through this years ago with my own daughter and I took all the abuse heaped on my character by my ex and her family believing that in the end my daughter will realize who is right and who is wrong. She's in her 20's now and level-headed and would not tolerate abusive behaviour from anyone. I think it is the most valuable lesson I taught her and the need to discuss matter in a frank and open manner.
I found her credible, but nobody knows for sure.
It is so difficult, when looking at a relationship from the outside to know what is actually going on.
The abuser can look like the "good guy/gal" from the outside, and the victim is going nuts and losing their temper/sanity ...looking like a real jerk/jerkess. Then the abuser can calmly stand back, and play the victim (because they are still in control of their emotions). They say or insinuate to all the clueless from the outside "See what I've had to put up with - he/she is nuts". What they neglect to reveal is that they have goaded the "nut" into losing control on purpose for their own sadistic amusement/gratification.
Mary Winkler is now a murderess. Is she the victim or perpetrator? Who knows!
As for the Alec Baldwin situation. Kim Basinger is not the only person who claims he is abusive. He always blames the other party and insinuates they are emotionally unstable. He did this to the actress who sued him for the same reason.
Here is interesting reading on that subject:
"He says his ex is nuts, and she calls him an abuser" (This could apply to both sexes but is written by a lady)
http://www.geocities.com/andifekete/nowwhatbanner.html
To the lady who described her normal marriage above. Thank you for that. You are lucky, and I hope you have many happy years together.
"Mary Winkler is now a murderess. Is she the victim or perpetrator? Who knows!"
At this point, she looks like the perp or did you forget that she shot a man in the back as he slept?
At least she'll get some prison time. Claudine Longet got nothing for killing Spider Sabich.
That was awful because Spider wasn't like a lot of narcissistic celebrities, he was a great guy.
This woman's claim that the shotgun went off on its own should have been recognized as a lie that should have convicted her. Guns don't "go off" on their own. Good thing, or my closet would be full of holes.
Anon wrote: "I found her credible, but nobody knows for sure."
What helped you see her as credible?
Was it when she shot her husband in the back while he slept? Was it when she tore the phone out of the wall so he could not call for help? Was it when she left the state so he would die? Was it when she never mentioned abuse during the original interview in Alabama? Was it when her 9 year old daughter said her father was not abusive to her mother or anyone? Was it the check kiting scam? Was it the illegal checking accounts she opened? Was it the perjury she committed by saying that she had no training with or knowledge of guns?
Or was it the parade of witnesses that corraborated her story? Oops, sorry, that last thing I mentioned, a single witness to any abuse, was the only thing that NEVER happened.
Anon, just what makes her credible to you? And would you like to buy the White House? I have some photos.
Trey
Hi Trey. Thank you for your pertinent question.
I find her credible because of these red flags which are often indications of spousal abuse behind closed doors.
1. She was not allowed to freely
see her loved ones/family and
had to "sneak around" to do so.
2. Witnesses saw facial bruises
that she tried to cover with
heavy make up.
Re your kind offer of White House. I regretfully decline, but thanks anyway. Have a great day.
"I know I'm probably wasting my time trying to explain the situation to those who have never been there, but no matter."
No. You don't have to endure this kind of thing to be able to observe it closely. It's really a small-scale version of the Stockholm Syndroms. A big part of the reason that the captive doesn't get free is that the process is gradual. Then also the captive is often very deeply invested in making the situation work, and this gives the captor a tool to use to extort more and more from the captive.
But none of this is really relelvant, is it? The relevant question is whether or not Winkler was justified. The jury sesm to have wondered enough to half-step the verdict. So what does that say?
If your wife continually belittels you and degrades you in front of your children, does that entitle you to beat her unrecognizable? If you husband tries to control your outsdie contacts, does that entitle you to shoot him in his sleep, when you are plainly and undeniable in no danger from him?
Some people seem to be answering that there are times when a person is allowed to act on emotion rather than reason. Well, one of the things that makes us human rather than animal is our ability to ruel oursleves by reason instead of emotion. The jury's verdict says what they think of Winkler, and because they were lenient becuase of her sex, it says what they think of women in general. They just called half the species animals.
Jim,
Then I guess you would have to say that feminists who believe in special rights for women feel the same way. This is what I object to in feminists and others who hold women as less culpable than men for their actions. It says that women are not autonomous human beings who are responsible for their actions, only men fit this bill. It is belittling, demeaning, and frankly incomprehensible to me.
Helen said: "At this point, she looks like the perp or did you forget that she shot a man in the back as he slept?"
(not the same anon, btw)
For me, if this same result happened with a woman who admitted "I did it. He was a horrible abuser. I could run, but he threatened to get my family or kids if I did. The court system couldn't keep him away from us."
Then you know, shooting him in the back while he slept wouldn't bother me very much if I was on a jury.
Adding
(if there was evidence of all this)
Helen,
"It is belittling, demeaning, and frankly incomprehensible to me."
I agree with the first two, but there is nothing incomprehensible about it - incurring pity is a very useful mechanism. It's not that difficult and the pay-off is huge. By flattering the egos of the protectors you get them to feed, clothe and house you, and they think you really need them, so they trust you to stay around. It may not compare very well with self-respect, but otherwise it is a pretty good deal.
And if you ever feel the pity abating, you can always go off and find someone to harm you enough to whip up some more pity. The most elegant arrangement is to get your protector to abuse you - later you can guilt-trip them into almost any indulgence; they may even cede all power in the home, over family finances, and the children to you, because they are obviously so morally inferior and you are so long-suffering and morally innoncent, and best of all it saves commute time to have them right there in the home.
"For me, if this same result happened with a woman who admitted "I did it. He was a horrible abuser. I could run, but he threatened to get my family or kids if I did. The court system couldn't keep him away from us."
Just chcking Anon....how would you react to this explanation:
"She was a horrible abuser. It wasn't even safe to go to sleep in the house. I knew I couldn't trust her not to hurt the kids. And I knew that CPS and the court system wouldn't even try to keep her away from the kids. They would probably arrest and jail me instead....and then who would protect my children?"
Still so casual about the shotgun?
You sound like it wouldn't take being on a jury for it not to bother you very much to shoot a man in the back.
Anonymous 6:35:
I once heard of a case where a very small gay man was a live-in prostitute for a very domineering man who was his pimp. This pimp tormented the man by withholding money, engaged in verbal abuse against the smaller man and might have even been "a horrible abuser"--not sure about the latter. The smaller man shot him in the head one night while he slept and killed him. If you were on the jury, would you let the prostitute walk?
Anon wrote: "1. She was not allowed to freely
see her loved ones/family and
had to "sneak around" to do so."
Who says? Where is the EVIDENCE? Mary WInkler, the murderer says so? She is de facto not credible.
"2. Witnesses saw facial bruises
that she tried to cover with
heavy make up." Who testified that she had bruises? Her family? Are there any ways to get facial bruises besides her husband? Where are the witnesses, where is the evidence?
If the dead man abused her, he should have been locked up, it is a crime and morally wrong. If he abused the children, he should have been locked up longer as that is a worse crime. But if she allowed him to abuse the children without reporting or stopping it, in Tennessee she would be locked up as a non-protective parent and a passive perpetrator.
Shooting him while he slept was an act of cowardice, not bravery. She was, and is the only perpetrator of record.
It pleases me that you are unwilling to buy the White House from me. Next step is to stop buying everything else someone tries to sell you, even if they wrap it in the tragedy of domestic violence and sexual abuse. First, seek the proof, test the evidence. Then you can actually make a decision about credibility instead of an emotional assumption.
Trey
Helen and Jim, I would not "let them off" but aren't you going to allow for mitigating circumstances?
*This is not the pro-murderer/pro-psycho Anon*
Let's list the facts:
1. The woman shot the man in the back while he was sleeping.
That's it. She murdered him. That's the only FACT present. She should be punished, and not with a walk in the park sentence either.
All of this extra curricular crap about Anon, the poster here, being "victimized" at one time in her life and "luckily" breaking away is irrelevant and noone cares. Quite frankly she's probably lying too.
I wish women would kill this "I'm a victim" routine. It is getting old.
Women "abuse" men all the time. It's called dating and marriage.
Yeah, all murders are the same, like our troops who killed Tillman in friendly fire No mitigating circumstances. EVER!
NO, you're wrong, why not just shut up instead of making stupid statements?
Dueling anons are difficult to follow. I am reading that the first anon above is not the pro murderer/pro psycho anon and the second is.
I worked with abused women and their children, it was rewarding and frustrating work. Rewarding when the women accepted support and left the abuser, frustrating when they would not. Many of the women in the group would try to talk the woman who was reconciling with a dangerous psycho out of it. I would always say something like "Jane here is very brave. She knows that we all think she will be injured and perhaps killed if she returns to this psychopath, but she is an adult and brave and making a choice. Good luck Jane. Now, is there anyone who wants to talk about their situation."
Without the drama, Jane would often make a smart choice. But if she could get attention and drama going, she would often do what it took to keep that familiar situation going.
Some people will always prefer a victim to healthy, responsible woman. Sadly, abusive men are not the only ones.
Yeah, all murders are the same, like our troops who killed Tillman in friendly fire...
So you think those guys wanted Tillman dead eh and that it qualifies as a murder?
Silly me, I always thought intent was a big part of the deal.
Okay, suppose the surviving member of the 4 murdered by the Carr brothers had shot one of the brothers while he slept, in between the rapes?
See here for reference.
http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/carr_brothers/
Or as anon 8:17 put it.
---
"1. The woman shot the man in the back while he was sleeping.
That's it. She murdered him. That's the only FACT present."
---
Really? If one of these women (or men for that matter) had managed to shoot one of these brothers while he slept instead of running out of the house you're going to throw the book at her?
Or maybe she should wake him up and give him a chance first because it's cowardly?
I'm not saying we should clear these people of a secondary crime if that's what they did, but the idea of just, "they shot him" end of story is just bs.
When it comes to Law and Psych, I'm about as "armchair" or "locker room" as they come.
OF COURSE I have all sorts of opinions, many of them shared here one way or the other. Let me be the FIRST to say "If I were king...."
If one (ERRONIOUSLY damn it!) subscribes to The Duluth Model, ANY relationship can be found to involve so-called "abuse", by either party.
Judges are targets for all expense paid "instructional" seminars from "special" groups.
Juries are subject to judicial "instruction", sometimes found to be disingeniously erronious or incomplete.(see, I can be courtious!)
Ultimately, the only thing I can hold onto here is my faith inA jury of their peers..
If I agree with the finding, or not, I simply must abide, no matter how distastefully, with the faith that the same will be offered me if the need arises! Otherwise, in a perfect world...with common sense....
"NO, you're wrong, why not just shut up instead of making stupid statements?"
CHILDISH ANTICS: "why not just shut up instead of making stupid statements?"
I never knew stating the truth was considered an act of stupidity. I suppose it would be to a good majority of western women whom have bought into pro-feminist dogma and hence become quite good at lying to themselves and subsequently others.
Again, I will state the facts. Do focus this time. I grow tired of instructing you..
* FACT: The woman murdered her husband.
* RANT AND WEAK DIVERSIONARY TACTIC(THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL TOPIC AT HAND): "Yeah, all murders are the same, like our troops who killed Tillman in friendly fire No mitigating circumstances. EVE"
Question: Are you even capable of recognizing factual information when it is presented?
Just in case you didn't catch on that question is in-fact rhetorical.
"I grow tired of instructing you.."
You shouldn't be allowed to instruct anything based on your efforts so far. And I really don't care if you hate rights for women. It's your choice to be a sub-par human; you can wallow in that crap.
I found this article interesting:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/13/AR2007041300895.html
It leaves me with the distinct impression that she got off much too lightly.
And I can see why the folks at Outside the Beltway found this quote hilarious, in a British-humor kind of way:
But Winkler said she got a job at the post office and that experience taught her to stand up for herself. "That's the problem. I have nerve now, and I have self-esteem. My ugly came out."
She went postal?
"Helen and Jim, I would not "let them off" but aren't you going to allow for mitigating circumstances?"
Certainly. But none have been shown in this case. All we have are the sefl-interested calims of the perpetrator
"And I really don't care if you hate rights for women."
Please spare us the pussy-ass, whiny melodrama of accusations like these.
How's this as a basic right for women: to have your behavior held to adult standards of responsiblity?
Why didn't she leave and divorce him? Maybe she thought he'd track her down and kill her?
Last week a father in our community chased his estranged wife down, ran her car off the road, shot and killed her and his 4-year-old son, shot and wounded an older daughter, while the other managed to run and hide. The wife had left the abusive marriage, taken the children, gotten a protection order, and the police had been searching for this guy for 48 hours because they felt he was on the verge of violence. Even with that obvious bias of the justice system in her favor, she'd still dead.
This jury heard the evidence and made a decision. Maybe they were right.
Ok, I have been in an abusive relationship for like 15 years and it escilates. Ended with me getting a nice ride in an ambulance to the ER.
Yes men are the victims of abuse also... but this isnt a statement for abused men.. just that both men and women are victims of abuse.. If I had shot my wife where would I be?. You will stay through much when you have kids and know you will probably loose them.
Lets forget the stupid gender wars and womens rights. Lets stand for peoples rights. Oh and yea think she deserved life in prision for what she did. The true question here is who was truly the abuser?
Murder is murder. And Mary Winkler got away with murder. man we really nedd to adress our court system
I have been severely psychologically and mentally abused for 21 years. My ex husband was a religious bigot who used the bible, my reputation in the church, my sexuality to control me and have me do his bidding for years. I experienced severe post traumatic stress disorder and remember moments when i just couldn't make sense of my existence or my thought process for that matter. I can understand Mary. These guys create isolation in every way for their victims. In other words, you can't confide in other people. "You need to protect the Lord's testimony" is what I would be told. He also had me convinced that I was the crazy one.... So be careful to judge.... Sometimes, you don't see a way out. Thankfully, God gave me the strenght to leave. I stayed away from the church for a long time after my divorce. I couldn't see God for who He was, Only how the monster i had lived with made him to be. Emotional isolation is a reality for the victim of abuse. So don't go thinking that it would be easy to reach out for a victim. It's not. Now that's something to chew on...
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home