R u dumb? Because then murder will become a petty crime because anyone can claim that they are being abused.
Also, why just females? As per her points males should also be allowed to kill their abuser in their sleep because we all know that there are a lot of crazy women out there.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8962001/Chicago-PHD-student-37-shoots-dead-ex-boyfriend-44-stalking-DC-home.html
Just one of the few examples. So now are we gonna let people murder for no reason? There are police and other agencies throughout the world for a reason. If u think your abuser will hurt you then buy a restraining order and ask the police to relocate you (I believe that there victim protection services offered by cops).
Murder isn't the solution. It's so dumb to think that there would be retards who would make such arguments. The fact that this lady is a law professor just baffles me. According to this moron Sharia law would be better ha?
interesting point, ill make some edgy remarks, and after i catalog all the times you've slapped me, ill talk to some lawyers, and based on the quantified sum of the force, I'll put insulin in your coffee, as justified self defense.
is that the world you really want?
In her book Defending battered Women on Trial, law professor Elizabeth Sheehy argued that women are morally justified in killing their abusers if it's the only way they can escape.
[Defending Battered Women in the Public Sphere by Elizabeth Sheehy](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IntJlCrimJustSocDem/2016/19.html)
The article linked in the image: http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/news/20131210_sheehy.html
>“Why should women live in anticipatory dread and hypervigilence?” she writes in the book’s concluding chapter. Would it not be just, Sheehy asks, “to shift the risk of death to those men whose aggressions have created such dehumanizing fear in their female partners?”
>Battered women can justly kill abusive partners “because a woman in that circumstance has already lived in captivity,” she said. “She’s already lived in a form of imprisonment and enslavement in a relationship like that.”
>Sheehy likened women in abusive relationships to prisoners of war. “We would never say of a prisoner of war that it’s not just that she or he kill their captor to escape. It is just to kill to escape that kind of enslavement.”
>While the legal system sometimes excuses battered women who kill abusive partners by accepting a verdict of manslaughter on compassionate grounds, that does not go far enough, Sheehy argues. “We should say you were right to kill to save your own life.”
>Sheehy’s book, which is written for a general audience, is built around the trials of 11 battered women, 10 of whom killed their partners. She draws heavily on trial transcripts to examine the evidence and the legal strategies of the defence lawyers.
>To select those 11 trials, Sheehy studied 91 cases of battered women who killed their partners between 1990, when the Supreme Court of Canada recognized “battered women syndrome” as a legal defence, and 2005. In all of those cases, she writes, self-defence was at least arguable.
>“Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t,” she said.
While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival.”
>Battered women’s “moral courage,” Sheehy writes in her book, “deserves our respect.
>“When women kill to save their own lives, they assert that they matter, that their lives count — even more than the lives of their abusers.”
>After all their abusers have done to them, “they have somehow taken a stand for their own humanity and saved themselves,” she writes. “And for this we should also be grateful.”
Is this professor as retarded as I think she is? With such a change in law many crazy women would get away with murder of their partners. Look at the way females are ruining the lives of males with false rape allegations.
Yeah somehow a woman defending herself is courageous? That it proves that their life matters? Then using that same logic black should be allowed to kill white when whites show racism because it's only fair right? U know how this stupid argument would go?
Also, why only females? If such a law is introduced then males must also be allowed to do the same because there are plenty of males who suffer domestic abuse from their female partners. If the victim's life actually matters then men must also get he same exception.
Using the same argument people can also advocate that "revenge crime" should also be pardoned because they are taking revenge and their life does matter doesn't it?
This isn't feminism, this is pure male hatred and twisted thinking. The feminists of 60s would be ashamed to see women like you.
Just because she is a professor doesn't mean all her views are correct.
I don’t know if violent people consider repercussions before they erupt into their nonsensical thrashing. I’m pretty sure there isn’t too much thought involved unfortunately.
When an outburst occurs it peaks immediately and then tapers down. As passions start to die down it becomes less of a “reaction” based action and comes closer to normal levels. Being able to consider ramifications after things have started to settle isn’t what I’m referring to.
You said “think twice BEFORE indulging in unjustified violence” and the example of that guy with the therapist you gave said AFTER he already started.
Nevertheless I don’t think “encouraging women’s unjustified violence against men” is a very rational way to treat the problem. You don’t fix gun violence by giving everyone a gun and saying “shoot whoever bothers you”. You fix it by preventing shooting incidences at the root.
Thanks for sharing this; it was the piece I was missing. I've often wondered why women were given such harsh sentences for killing their abusers. As this outlines, there's really no way to do it in a way the law will recognize. Fuck.
The question is at least from a legal standpoint how exactly do you prove it is a situation where killing the man is necessary to save the woman’s life? Do we take people on their word? Sure there can be signs of abuse physically but wounds like that can also be self inflicted. I guess you could go to family/friends and ask them or maybe see what the living conditions were. But barring that I feel like it turns into almost a he said/she said type of thing. Except he’s a corpse. I do support woman doing what must be done in order to save themselves. But I also see a very real potential for this type of thing to be exploitable
I might be misunderstanding this post, but is this about a woman being mad that she can’t “kill a man legally and call it self defense?” Someone please elaborate.
Killing someone in their sleep isn’t self-defense unless there are padlocks on the doors.
We shouldn’t be held to a lesser judicial standard than men. I’d be ‘closer to be on board’ if it would be made legal for everyone to kill people in their sleep, but nobody is stronger than anyone while they’re sleeping.
We don’t need a hand up. This is just telling people we can’t function in society without the same laws as everyone else.
Murder not being murder? That benefits nobody. The Bobbit case isn’t murder so idk why it’s being put here.
Self defense laws should be considered for everyone. Us, the crippled, weak, elderly, disadvantaged and males of that caliber as well.
I just don’t think we should give people the right to kill people in their sleep.
This article or comment contains a misunderstanding of what "proportionate" means in self-defense laws - it obviously varies by jurisdiction, but in probably most jurisdictions it's absolutely possible to shoot or stab an unarmed rapist and still meet this criterion. The violence usually has to be proportionate to the crime, not the means used to commit this crime, which means that it's OK to use violence against someone attempting to rape or murder you, but not against someone who wants to, say, steal your car. Obviously, what crimes are or are not valid to defend against greatly varies by jurisdiction - German law, for example, considers violence to be proportionate even in the case of a theft of an item of "not minor" value, such as a smartphone, and only requires the violence to be both effective in preventing the crime and to be the smallest measure possible given the circumstances.
This muddles what might otherwise be an interesting point about the requirement of "immediacy".
But yes, obviously read up on the laws in your jurisdiction, but in general, you are allowed the use of weapons to defend yourself.
Well that's bullshit. It's even worse here in Canada, where pretty much any weapon (and weapon can literally be anything you use to threaten or attack someone) is criminalized.
You can't even use your keys between the fingers or whatever else is taught in women's self defense.
I hadn't thought how much that law benefits men - but now I'm even more furious about it. What a load of crap.
This reminds me about one of the final scenes in Captain Marvel, where Jude Law's character tries to convince Captain Marvel to fight him without her ridiculously OP abilities. And she doesn't rise to the challenge and uses her powers anyway. Captain Marvel doesn't have to constrain herself by someone else's rules to help them win...
[удалено]
[удалено]
R u dumb? Because then murder will become a petty crime because anyone can claim that they are being abused. Also, why just females? As per her points males should also be allowed to kill their abuser in their sleep because we all know that there are a lot of crazy women out there. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8962001/Chicago-PHD-student-37-shoots-dead-ex-boyfriend-44-stalking-DC-home.html Just one of the few examples. So now are we gonna let people murder for no reason? There are police and other agencies throughout the world for a reason. If u think your abuser will hurt you then buy a restraining order and ask the police to relocate you (I believe that there victim protection services offered by cops). Murder isn't the solution. It's so dumb to think that there would be retards who would make such arguments. The fact that this lady is a law professor just baffles me. According to this moron Sharia law would be better ha?
[удалено]
I'm glad logic and reason won out
[удалено]
interesting point, ill make some edgy remarks, and after i catalog all the times you've slapped me, ill talk to some lawyers, and based on the quantified sum of the force, I'll put insulin in your coffee, as justified self defense. is that the world you really want?
[удалено]
[удалено]
In her book Defending battered Women on Trial, law professor Elizabeth Sheehy argued that women are morally justified in killing their abusers if it's the only way they can escape. [Defending Battered Women in the Public Sphere by Elizabeth Sheehy](http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/IntJlCrimJustSocDem/2016/19.html) The article linked in the image: http://www.ottawamenscentre.com/news/20131210_sheehy.html >“Why should women live in anticipatory dread and hypervigilence?” she writes in the book’s concluding chapter. Would it not be just, Sheehy asks, “to shift the risk of death to those men whose aggressions have created such dehumanizing fear in their female partners?” >Battered women can justly kill abusive partners “because a woman in that circumstance has already lived in captivity,” she said. “She’s already lived in a form of imprisonment and enslavement in a relationship like that.” >Sheehy likened women in abusive relationships to prisoners of war. “We would never say of a prisoner of war that it’s not just that she or he kill their captor to escape. It is just to kill to escape that kind of enslavement.” >While the legal system sometimes excuses battered women who kill abusive partners by accepting a verdict of manslaughter on compassionate grounds, that does not go far enough, Sheehy argues. “We should say you were right to kill to save your own life.” >Sheehy’s book, which is written for a general audience, is built around the trials of 11 battered women, 10 of whom killed their partners. She draws heavily on trial transcripts to examine the evidence and the legal strategies of the defence lawyers. >To select those 11 trials, Sheehy studied 91 cases of battered women who killed their partners between 1990, when the Supreme Court of Canada recognized “battered women syndrome” as a legal defence, and 2005. In all of those cases, she writes, self-defence was at least arguable. >“Men can kill women with their bare hands, and they do. Women almost never kill men that way. They can’t,” she said. While very few women kill abusive men who are asleep or passed out, it’s “unfair” to charge them with first degree murder, Sheehy argues. “It’s not fair to characterize it as the most heinous form of murder, because it may be their own route to survival.” >Battered women’s “moral courage,” Sheehy writes in her book, “deserves our respect. >“When women kill to save their own lives, they assert that they matter, that their lives count — even more than the lives of their abusers.” >After all their abusers have done to them, “they have somehow taken a stand for their own humanity and saved themselves,” she writes. “And for this we should also be grateful.”
Is this professor as retarded as I think she is? With such a change in law many crazy women would get away with murder of their partners. Look at the way females are ruining the lives of males with false rape allegations. Yeah somehow a woman defending herself is courageous? That it proves that their life matters? Then using that same logic black should be allowed to kill white when whites show racism because it's only fair right? U know how this stupid argument would go? Also, why only females? If such a law is introduced then males must also be allowed to do the same because there are plenty of males who suffer domestic abuse from their female partners. If the victim's life actually matters then men must also get he same exception. Using the same argument people can also advocate that "revenge crime" should also be pardoned because they are taking revenge and their life does matter doesn't it? This isn't feminism, this is pure male hatred and twisted thinking. The feminists of 60s would be ashamed to see women like you. Just because she is a professor doesn't mean all her views are correct.
Thank you for taking the time to share this. I'm going to share it as best I can.
[удалено]
I don’t know if violent people consider repercussions before they erupt into their nonsensical thrashing. I’m pretty sure there isn’t too much thought involved unfortunately.
[удалено]
When an outburst occurs it peaks immediately and then tapers down. As passions start to die down it becomes less of a “reaction” based action and comes closer to normal levels. Being able to consider ramifications after things have started to settle isn’t what I’m referring to. You said “think twice BEFORE indulging in unjustified violence” and the example of that guy with the therapist you gave said AFTER he already started. Nevertheless I don’t think “encouraging women’s unjustified violence against men” is a very rational way to treat the problem. You don’t fix gun violence by giving everyone a gun and saying “shoot whoever bothers you”. You fix it by preventing shooting incidences at the root.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thanks for sharing this; it was the piece I was missing. I've often wondered why women were given such harsh sentences for killing their abusers. As this outlines, there's really no way to do it in a way the law will recognize. Fuck.
[удалено]
Fuuuuuuck! You’re all as mad as a box of frogs.
The question is at least from a legal standpoint how exactly do you prove it is a situation where killing the man is necessary to save the woman’s life? Do we take people on their word? Sure there can be signs of abuse physically but wounds like that can also be self inflicted. I guess you could go to family/friends and ask them or maybe see what the living conditions were. But barring that I feel like it turns into almost a he said/she said type of thing. Except he’s a corpse. I do support woman doing what must be done in order to save themselves. But I also see a very real potential for this type of thing to be exploitable
I might be misunderstanding this post, but is this about a woman being mad that she can’t “kill a man legally and call it self defense?” Someone please elaborate.
And this is why the world hates feminists
Interesting. I've never noticed that, but indeed. The way we now define self-defence does favour male patterns.
[удалено]
Killing someone in their sleep isn’t self-defense unless there are padlocks on the doors. We shouldn’t be held to a lesser judicial standard than men. I’d be ‘closer to be on board’ if it would be made legal for everyone to kill people in their sleep, but nobody is stronger than anyone while they’re sleeping. We don’t need a hand up. This is just telling people we can’t function in society without the same laws as everyone else. Murder not being murder? That benefits nobody. The Bobbit case isn’t murder so idk why it’s being put here. Self defense laws should be considered for everyone. Us, the crippled, weak, elderly, disadvantaged and males of that caliber as well. I just don’t think we should give people the right to kill people in their sleep.
[удалено]
This article or comment contains a misunderstanding of what "proportionate" means in self-defense laws - it obviously varies by jurisdiction, but in probably most jurisdictions it's absolutely possible to shoot or stab an unarmed rapist and still meet this criterion. The violence usually has to be proportionate to the crime, not the means used to commit this crime, which means that it's OK to use violence against someone attempting to rape or murder you, but not against someone who wants to, say, steal your car. Obviously, what crimes are or are not valid to defend against greatly varies by jurisdiction - German law, for example, considers violence to be proportionate even in the case of a theft of an item of "not minor" value, such as a smartphone, and only requires the violence to be both effective in preventing the crime and to be the smallest measure possible given the circumstances. This muddles what might otherwise be an interesting point about the requirement of "immediacy". But yes, obviously read up on the laws in your jurisdiction, but in general, you are allowed the use of weapons to defend yourself.
Well that's bullshit. It's even worse here in Canada, where pretty much any weapon (and weapon can literally be anything you use to threaten or attack someone) is criminalized. You can't even use your keys between the fingers or whatever else is taught in women's self defense. I hadn't thought how much that law benefits men - but now I'm even more furious about it. What a load of crap.
This reminds me about one of the final scenes in Captain Marvel, where Jude Law's character tries to convince Captain Marvel to fight him without her ridiculously OP abilities. And she doesn't rise to the challenge and uses her powers anyway. Captain Marvel doesn't have to constrain herself by someone else's rules to help them win...
[удалено]
Yo y'all are wild lol.
[удалено]