There are different degrees of dangerousness, but should we be accepting any of them?
When is enough going to be enough?
- Thread starter SLM
- Start date
There are different degrees of dangerousness, but should we be accepting any of them?
If he just up and snapped and beat the snot out of her then yeah, maybe he is dangerous or maybe he is just dangrerous to one person who threatened to take his kid away for reasons we don't know.
Maybe Obama or Harper made him do it?
Maybe Obama or Harper made him do it?
It doesn't matter his motives. For his crime, 10 years is not enough. If this has been a simple punch or even a 2 minute loss of temper your argument would hold some water. This was 3 hours +. I don't buy the kool aid you are selling.
So he should have killed her and gotten 2-5 years for manslaughter? He got double that. That is plenty.
Unlike you, I haven't pretended to care about his motives. Nor would I care about the motives of a woman who spent 3 hours trying to beat her husband to death and raping him. The crime speaks for itself in its cruelty, its length, and it method.
No person, no gender, has a motive that would excuse 3 hours of attempting to beat someone to death, and raping them. Thus I not only don't pretend to know his motive, like you're doing, but I also don't CARE about his motive.
You're outnumbered on this one Petros, it just doesn't hold up to your usual level of wisdom. :lol:
now that's just dumb, petros
the act can't be justified by any motive.
what drove him to it?
nothing can mitigate the abhorrence of his crime.
I am not one who believes that 2-5 years is an acceptable sentence for manslaughter. However, it would not have been manslaughter. It would have been 2nd degree murder as there would have been intent to kill.
10 years is not enough for attempted murder.
Forest for trees....
The sentence is appropriate.
The meat of the matter is indeed his reasons.
Moaning and groaning and calling somebody a beast while thumping on your own chest amounts to a pissy dribble and does nothing to answer the questions of why it happened and what can be done to prevent **** like this happening again.
Prisons, lynchings, executions are all hindsight which definetly isn't 20/20 vision.
The sentence is appropriate.
The meat of the matter is indeed his reasons.
Moaning and groaning and calling somebody a beast while thumping on your own chest amounts to a pissy dribble and does nothing to answer the questions of why it happened and what can be done to prevent **** like this happening again.
Prisons, lynchings, executions are all hindsight which definetly isn't 20/20 vision.
Attempted murder for anything less than this offense could be very hard to prove, and might even be hard to prove here. (He could argue if he meant to murder her he would have stuck a knife in her). I think in a case like an indeterminate sentence would be appropriate (there is a chance he could mend his ways) I would think he could be reassessed after five years for further appropriate action. By the same token if he doesn't improve they should throw away the key.
Yep, PHYSICALLY she is still alive. She's obviously scarred physically and very likely mentally and may never return to being the person she was before. I have no sympathy for the f**ker!
I think people have reached the right conclusion with the wrong logic.
There are two considerations in the comparison between a woman killing an abusive husband, and this situation.
The first is that the woman survived. Yes, she lost her sense of safety, her lack of pain, and possibly her appearance, and mobility.
However, if she had died, she would have lost all of that and much more. She would have lost everything.
I think that in her place, I would have gladly chose the beating/assault, over being killed.
Therefore, as the lesser of two evils, I think that the prolonged assault should carry less of a sentence than a murder.
However, it should be noted that the accused ,did intend to commit murder and it was only the intervention of the police which prevented it.
Based on that, the defendant should deserve a sentence equivalent to a 2nd degree murder charge, as this was not pre-meditated.
Sentences for second-degree murder range from 10 to 25 years, so this is within the ballpark. The fact that she survived was likely taken into account, as it added some doubt as to his final intentions, given that in three hours, he had not succeeded in killing her.
Incidentally, had she died, this would be the textbook definition of 2nd degree murder.
The other point of significance in the comparison is self-defense. Women beaten by their husbands over a prolonged time, are able to use the 'battered wife syndrome' to explain why killing was necessary. They are too fearful to disobey their husbands, because of years of mental control exerted on them by their husbands through fear and intimidation.
I think in this particular case, there is not even a suggestion that this was done in self-defense, or to escape battered wife syndrome.
This act was done purely, on jealousy, hatred, and spite.
Also, it should be noted that we do not know from the article that a rape occurred. The term sexual assault could be anything from a forced kiss to rape.
Nothing that anyone could ever do would justify that level of violent assault. I don't care what the genders are of the victim and the victimizer. Wrong is wrong. Period. (I know you don't really know what that this but ask around someone will explain it to you.)
Ok, now you're just being stupid about it. FFS
Exactly! Why in the hell should we reward someone who tries to kill another human being simply by virtue of the fact that the intended victim doesn't die? That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of.