#bad faith

siryouarebeingmocked:

menalez:

silverscreenx:

menalez:

silverscreenx:

menalez:

silverscreenx:

menalez:

gayfortheconstitution:

cisnowflake:

feminist-pussycat:

I think pedophiles, rapists and male murderers should be executed

no i am not taking suggestions

I was going to ask why not female murderers but the tags say it all, don’t they?

I’d also ask about female rapists and pedophiles, but something tells me OP will just pretend those don’t exist.

because most female murderers are acting in self-defence. most male murderers are not at all. why are y’all this pressed over someone wanting rapists & pedos dead tho?

“Most”. Debatable, but let’s roll with it.

What about the others?

what others?

The other female murderers. The ones that don’t do it out of self-defense. Even though self-defense ISN’T murder.

women who kill in self defence are still prosecuted for murder a huge portion of the time, bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.

and what about the other female murderers? i said nothing on them. i only theorised why op probably specified with male murderers, but didn’t specify with rapists nor pedophilea. op probably didn’t want to wish death on female murderers as a group when a large portion of them have been found, time and time again, to have been acting in self defence.

That’s bullshit

it’s not. already provided evidence months back which you can find in the notes :). but since u felt the need to bring this up months later instead of scrolling a little in the notes to find the sources:

here,here,here,here,here,here,here,here

these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.

there is little consideration in court for female self defence due to the difference in how women defend themselves and the chances they get to do so.

and women are often convicted despite it being self defence.

 > bc to get away from abusers they often need to find a moment when said abuser is for example sleeping, which is not recognised by most courts as self defence, despite it being so.

Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.

This is the equivalent of that lady in Chicago going 

>these sources prove the following: a huge portion of female murderers do so in self defence.

Which links, specifically, do that? To choose at random, that Irish women’s aid one doesn’t seem to have any sources, except themselves, and that “Femicide watch” PDF starts by implying men can’t kill women in self-defense, ever. And also that men are the only people who kill women worth talking about.

As if the title wasn’t a hint of bias. The term and usage “femicide’ implies any woman murdered by a man must’ve been killed out of misogyny, which is not how murder works. It also claims;

“ A review of Femicide by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found that an intimate partner commits more than 35% of murders of women worldwide. In comparison, the same study estimates that an intimate partner commits about 5% of all murders of men. The same report also showed that women killing their male intimate partners was often an act of self-defence following ongoing violence and intimidation.”

Okay. And how many of those women are convicted or even accused of murder, specifically? Or charged at all. Doesn’t say, and I can’t be arsed to look up a third study, which will probably be just as biased as the rest.

I also can’t seem to find the part in your link - the “Impact Report” - where they claim women are incorrectly sentenced for self-defense. Which would be a tad hypocritical when Page 5 says intimate relationships should be considered aggravating factors for men who are charged.

Also, have you ever heard of a Gish Gallop?

Also, I like how you backpedalled to “i only theorised why op probablyspecified”, even though your first post was a direct, unequivocal statement with no qualifiers. 

You also backpedalled from “most female murderers” to “a huge portion”, which is much less specific. And it would still include “most”.

To me, it seemed pretty obvious OP wasn’t talking about legal criteria, because pedophilia is not illegal. That would be thoughtcrime. You have to actually dosomething with those desires to go to jail.

Oh,and OP said she wants female murderers imprisoned, not executed.Nothing about false convictions or self-defense. So your made up rationale was completely wrong to start with. 

So, it’s very obvious to me that SYABM and others who are reblogging this don’t understand Battered Women’s Syndrome (BWS) and the associated legal arguments. I covered most of this in an earlier response to this post here, but I’ll restate the prevalent parts again after quoting.

Yes, killing someone who is not presenting an imminent deadly threat and physically can’t keep you from leaving or assault you in any way is generally not considered self-defense.

Right. No one is disagreeing with this. This isn’t a response. Menalez and many others recognize that this is a fact. Their argument is that it shouldn’t be. Yours an implied “it should be” but just stating the facts as everyone accepts them is not an appropriate response to the contention that the facts shouldn’t be true. That’s like responding to someone saying “you should have used more salt” with “but I didn’t.” You’re dodging the question and saying things that everyone agrees on.

Now, onto the actual contentions. As I summarized in my post, and as you stated here, the current standards for self-defense usually don’t cover most instances of BWS. I think that’s a mistake. Some instances of BWS look like State v. Norman where a woman endured repeated abuse from her husband over years including (but horrifyingly not limited to): Punching, kicking, having cigarettes put out on her, facial scarring and disfigurement, having hot coffee thrown at her naked body, having glass broken against her face, forced prostitution for money (her husband did not want to work), humiliation of the defendant to her family and friends, food deprivation for days, sleep deprivation for weeks, etc. Now forgive me, but I think a woman snapping after 20 years of this treatment and killing her husband is a little different than someone murdering a business partner or a complete stranger in cold blood.

However, the Supreme Court of North Carolina disagreed. he court held that despite the horrible abuse that the defendant endured, and the distinct possibility that had her husband lived she would have been subjected to yet more horrible abuse, the fact that she shot her husband while he slept meant that there was no reasonable, objective fear of imminent harm. Mere subjective belief from the defendant of the inevitability of future acts, regardless of the strength of evidence to support these conclusions was insufficient. And while the defendant’s abuse was terrible, and there was abuse the day before the murder, there was no abuse in the period directly before her husband fell asleep. That seems like there’s a little bit of a weird standard there to me–possibly some sexism involved in how the legal system determines what is or is not “reasonable” in terms of self-defense–but you might disagree.

However, if you do, I want to hear why. Why is a woman who killed her husband in his sleep after being subjected to 20 years of what we would call a crime against humanity if inflicted on a broader population the same as a cold blooded murderer who premeditatedly kills a stranger because he or she wants to? Show your work.

As for the murder charge/conviction rate, I don’t know the actual number off the top of my head, but it’s pretty high. Self-defense usually means that there’s a murder charge, and if it’s a BWS case, the murder charge is even more likely because it means that the self-defense claim is itself conditional on the jury’s belief/ the veracity of the BWS claim. Which… is not super likely to be believed. According to April 2021 update to the American Jurisprudence Proof of Facts, between 60-70% of women claiming BWS who are convicted are affirmed on appeal regardless of the convincingness of their expert testimony (Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 2d 1 (originally published in 1983) (April, 2021 ed)). Plus, there are further issues with establishing BWS including the total number of events that need to occur before claiming BWS, limitations of self-defense claims even after BWS is proven, etc. It’s a very complicated area of the law. You clearly don’t understand it, which is fine, but it warrants a little more than just a couple paragraphs of dismissal.

And you only got to the impact report because you dismissed the first source (a seminal piece of legal scholarship) and the second source (a strong piece by the law firm Linklaters) to try and find a weaker source that you can attack. And you did it. That’s a bad source. Doesn’t prove your argument seeing as you have no source and have yet to respond to the first two sources which are better.

You’re using the claim of Gish Gallopping wrong as well. A Gish Gallop really doesn’t work in this kind of setting, and if it did would require more sources. Likewise, when someone is legitimately asked for sources and provides them, you can’t then turn-around and accuse them of a Gish Gallop in good faith. You (or at the very least your side) asked for the information. If you can’t be assed to read it then that’s on you. And that did happen. If you go through the notes, it happened quite a lotactually.

The first post actually does have a qualifier? The word “most” is a qualifier. Without it, it would refer to all female murderers. Now it’s just referring to “most” (which we’ll assume is some percentage over 50% but probably not up to 90%). By definition, the qualifier removes at least 10% of female murderers from discussion. Also, it’s entirely possible that Menalez doesn’t agree entirely with the OP–just as I don’t agree entirely with Menalez. We’re not talking about “all” female murderers like the OP said. We’re now talking about “most” female murderers. And personally, I wouldn’t classify “a large portion” as a retreat from “most” based on my reading of the sentence, but that’s subjective.

It’s fine to point out that Menalez doesn’t totally agree with the OP. That still doesn’t respond to her point. Maybe you don’t want to do that. Maybe you just want to respond to the easier claim that all female murderers are different from all male murderers. If so, then Menalez moved the goalposts. If not, and you actually want to respond to the points being raised, then the one moving the goalposts is you.