The final triumph of feminism - a license to kill

[Jon Miller]

Seems like a needed law.

JM

[Patroklos]

it would be if these were strangers but they have a history of violence and she's the one been getting beat up. If Pa was raping their teen girl and either Ma or the girl killed Pa, would that be in cold blood? No, the killing was provoked by years of abuse. If the kids locked up by that Austrian mental case killed him, would that be in cold blood?

If someone was being held prisoner in a shed and sat around all day plotting how to kill their captor, and then carried it out, would that be in cold blood?

Wow, you actually repeated an already retarded strawman

Would you care to retract it, I will delete the evidence from this post out of the goodness of my heart if that is the case

[chequita guevara]

It's not a strawman. Answer the question.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


If someone was being held prisoner in a shed and sat around all day plotting how to kill their captor, and then carried it out, would that be in cold blood?

Yes.

Of course, the analogy fails, because the people affected by this law aren't physically confined.

[Patroklos]

It's not a strawman. Answer the question.

It is the very definition of one. First off, please tell us what the legalese term for involuntary physical confinement is, k thanx!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Yes.

Of course, the analogy fails, because the people affected by this law aren't physically confined.

No, they are only confined by a threat of violence. The best leash is immaterial. These women invariably feel trapped, with no place to run for help. They feel that if they try and escape, they will be killed. So they kill instead.

I should point out that here in Florida, this is completely legal. Lethal self-defense, here, does not require an attempt to escape, merely the sincere belief that your are in mortal peril. While I expect that abused wives were not on the minds of our legislators, but rather decent, hard working, church going, white men being accosted in dark alleys by crazed, drug using, Black men, nonetheless, it applies. As my state legislature is solidly GOP and my gov also GOP, one can hardly chalk this up to bleeding hearts, although bleeding hearts (and other body parts) have resulted from it.

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The best leash is immaterial.

I think a tungsten alloy chain would be a bit more effective than nothing.

[Patroklos]

No, they are only confined by a threat of violence.

Thats not what you said though, is it? Again, the definition of a strawman.

[DirtyMartini]

There was a "Law and Order" episode about this. I blame NBC.

[quantum_mechani]

This strikes me as the exact opposite of feminism. The implication here is not that women are equal, but rather they are less responsible for their actions, as in children. Not to mention the patently wrong implication that women are never abusers in the case of domestic abuse. I have no problem per se that this type of crime is labeled a lesser offense, but that men are not (at least in theory) offered the same protection is a huge step backwards for equal rights.

[-Jrabbit]

Lyn Costello of Mothers Against Murder and Aggression

= MAMA

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Thats not what you said though, is it? Again, the definition of a strawman.

You made an absolute statement. I showed that it was not absolute, that under certain circumstances, it would not be considered cold blooded. Once we established that your absolute statement is actually a relative one, it then is a very simple matter of showing how your statement does not necessarily apply. Your refusal to play along only showed you knew this would happen.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Felch


I think a tungsten alloy chain would be a bit more effective than nothing.

I stand corrected.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by quantum_mechani
This strikes me as the exact opposite of feminism. The implication here is not that women are equal, but rather they are less responsible for their actions, as in children. Not to mention the patently wrong implication that women are never abusers in the case of domestic abuse. I have no problem per se that this type of crime is labeled a lesser offense, but that men are not (at least in theory) offered the same protection is a huge step backwards for equal rights.

Men have the same protection in Florida. If they believe they are in imminent danger, they can kill a person without attempting to escape.

The point here, is not that these women are not being held responsible for retaliating against their abusers, but rather, they believed they were under an imminent threat of their life and killed in order to live. It is a matter for the courts to determine whether or not this applies in individual cases.

[quantum_mechani]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Men have the same protection in Florida. If they believe they are in imminent danger, they can kill a person without attempting to escape.

The point here, is not that these women are not being held responsible for retaliating against their abusers, but rather, they believed they were under an imminent threat of their life and killed in order to live. It is a matter for the courts to determine whether or not this applies in individual cases.

Well, first off, this isn't in Florida. I don't really know much about how this sort of thing is handled in the UK, but if the proposed changes apply both to men and women, then I would say the entire story is case of putting a ridiculous spin on the issue. In deciding what is and what is not murder, the gender of either party should be immaterial.