• secretlife said on Feb 19, 2009....

  i'm so glad she killed him- now he won't be a threat to her anymore at least-
  i've got no idea why they'd arrest her for protecting herself in her own home.  sounds like some kind of mistake?

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2009....

  SL - I would guess he's probably charge her with assault if he survived.  I'm sure she knew that and made sure to finish the job.  It's a huge mistake on law enforcements side, even if it is procedure.

• nytquill17 said on Feb 19, 2009....

  We do have the right to defend ourselves and our property - we just don't have the right to carry that defense however far we like.  The rule of law in those cases is "necessary force."  You're legally allowed to do whatever it takes to get yourself (or someone you're defending) out of danger, but no more.  Once the bad guy is subdued or out of commission, there is no threat to defend yourself against, and therefore anything you do beyond what it takes to get to that point is not considered "in self-defense."
  
  So if you have to brain a burglar with a frying pan to make him stop, okay.  Once he's unconscious, unarmed, restrained, crippled, whatever...you can't legally brain him again.  The only time it's legal to kill someone, even in your own home, even if that person is there illegally, is if killing him is the only way to protect your own life or someone you're defending.  For example he's high on drugs and just keeps coming no matter how bad you hurt him, or he's pointing a gun at your head.  It has to be your only option to save yourself.
  
  My guess is, something in the initial circumstances of this case made it appear that the woman used unnecessary force - that she didn't have to go so far as killing him in order to protect herself.  I mean, no he shouldn't have been there, and maybe the police should have done more to help her, but that still doesn't give her the legal right to kill him.  The moral right yeah - it's not like I can't understand where she was coming from!
  
  Anyway until there are more details to the story, we don't know what happened or whether this is unjust.  What was the original behavior that got the restraining order?  Threatening or annoying?  Was she in danger or did she just get fed up?  Granted a guy breaking in your house (if that's what happened) after he's been bothering you in some way for a couple years, is scary enough and a degree of danger in itself.  But we don't know what happened that caused her to stab him, if she was justified or if she lost it.
  
  It may come out later that she DID have to kill him to protect herself, in which case she shouldn't be punished.
  

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2009....

  nytquill - this guy had two stab wounds and she called 911 after the attack.  I agree that if he had a dozen wounds and there was no restraining order against him that it would make sense not to allow her to bond out of jail.  But he was arrested once for violating the restraining order, so just an educated guess, but I'd say she had a reasonable fear for her life.  In any case, the failure for the courts to allow her to bond out is what I question most.

• nytquill17 said on Feb 19, 2009....

  Okay, I missed that somehow on my first read-through.  That DOES seem a bit much...it's not like she's a dangerous criminal...maybe she's a flight risk?  But still!

• Lucytorial said on Feb 19, 2009....

  pardon the fuck? thats sick... I'd be putting in a petition for the poor women...

• Hegemone said on Feb 19, 2009....

  That's just wrong.  It's things like this that nearly justify certain vigilante behaviors.  If you can't rely on your own local law enforcement, who can you rely on?  Why should people have to live in fear because they know their local police won't help them!  It's ridiculous of course.  It's just a complete show of how lazy law enforcement has gotten.  It was too hard to do something more to keep this guy away, to take any actions to get there fast and help the woman ... but it was pretty clean, cut and dry when they found him stabbed and he later died.  She did it, end of case, they didn't have to get out the search dogs or anything.  Sad, really sad.

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2009....

  Nytquill - she might be a flight risk, but having been physically abused I think my sympathies would be if she left the country.  Also, whatever happened to presumed innocent?
   
  Lu - I hope there are people doing that.  The fact that it popped up on internet popular articles is a big step in her favor.

• mobil said on Feb 19, 2009....

  It's not mistake, it's called the Castle Law and many states do not have it. This means that your home is your Castle and you can use lethal force to protect it and yourself.
   
  Many states say no to this logical thinking, they say if your home is entered into, you must use every means avaiable to you to flee, yeah flee your own house and give it over to the intruder.
   
  Make sense to you?

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2009....

  mobil - makes sense like shooting yourself in the foot sense.  No.  Not at all.  That's a fundamentally flawed logic.  If that were logical we might as well hand over the keys to our country to any group who wants to terrorize us.  Like the US is our home to defend, our houses should also be ours to defend.

• mixednuts said on Feb 19, 2009....

  I agree with you U.I...100 percent!

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 19, 2009....

  mixed - thanks.

• GrapeKoolaid said on Feb 19, 2009....

  The world is indeed a strange place... 
  
  This reminds me of another article that I read the other day.  Some illegal immigrants sued a farm owner in AZ(I think) for detaining them and actually won! 
  
  It's a little late and my brain's a little groggy to find the source right now, but I will do so when I remember.  I was thinking about doing a blog post about it. 
  

• queenparanoia said on Feb 20, 2009....

  i dont get it. she was protecting herself right?

• BurnedOut said on Feb 20, 2009....

  the sad thing is...although she is no longer threatened by this man for obvious reasons, now she has to defend herself again the people that are supposed to protect US. 

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 20, 2009....

  Grape - in that case they deserved a victory .... and a ticket back to their home country.

  queenie - that's how it looks.  Which is why I'm mad at the law enforcement.

  BO - exactly.  Victimized twice.

• pleasantskies said on Feb 20, 2009....

  You have a fundamental right to protect yourself but not your property. The fact they arrested her scares and disgusts me. 

• uniquely-ironic said on Feb 20, 2009....

  pleasant - thanks for clarifying that.  You're right about not having the right to use deadly force to defend property.  It does disgust me that she was arrested.  If they had questions, certainly sitting down and talking to her should have cleared that up.

• Fallyn said on Mar 09, 2009....

  in colorado they have the "make my day" law.  it was upheld just a couple years ago.....basically it states that if someone comes into your home without you actually letting them in that you have the right to kill them.
   
   

• uniquely-ironic said on Mar 09, 2009....

  fallyn - maybe I should move to colorado just to be safe

• mobil said on Mar 10, 2009....

  This Castle law goes even further in Montana Uni, it states that you are your own Castle and have the right to defend yourself with deadly force when threatened whereever that may be.
   
  We can carry pistols here anywhere but schools and federal buildings. When good people can defend themselves, crime goes down.

• uniquely-ironic said on Mar 10, 2009....

  mobil - that's always been my feeling.  I know there are other problems with everyone being armed, but statistically speaking robbery is reduced dramatically.

Comment on "Punish the Victim"

Currently tagged	life relationship stress tag law self-defense stupidity (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment