Man claims he Killed wife in self defence after domestic abuse

[the game]

No I'm not. How many times has a "victim" killed their wife, hid the body and not contacted the authorities? How many times has such a person been found innocent?

So guilty until proven innocent then.

[Dug]

So guilty until proven innocent then.

Wonder if you'll be consistent in this when another thread that involves "thugs" and "animals" comes around.

[the game]

Wonder if you'll be consistent in this when another thread that involves "thugs" and "animals" comes around.

Lets see how consistent you are when a thread involves a certain profession.

[chazus]

I'm not asking an abuse victim.

....yeah you did.

Why didn't he go to a shelter?

Why didn't he leave?

Regardless of what or why he did what he did, you still are wondering why he didn't leave.

[Spiffums]

Her death might have really been self defense......but the concealing the body shoots that defense down before you even start.

[chazus]

No I'm not. How many times has a "victim" killed their wife, hid the body and not contacted the authorities? How many times has such a person been found innocent?

There are plenty of times the victim killed their SO and then did something stupid afterwards.

Regardless, yeah. Asking why they didn't just easily skate out of the problem beforehand is pretty low.

[Krastyn]

I'm asking a question. There are many resources available in Canada.

So, just to clarify here. She was killed in 2012.

From this story here from 2013 titled "Man who ran Canada’s only shelter dedicated solely to male victims of domestic abuse dies in apparent suicide":
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...parent-suicide

One shelter. One. And it closed because it couldn't get any funding. One is an odd definition for "many".

[Dug]

Lets see how consistent you are when a thread involves a certain profession.

What you mean the profession that my family has been apart of for a couple of generations now that I respect immensely but can still criticize when need be? That one? Remember though innocent before proven guilty, even for the thugs and animals Mayhem.

[Maruka]

It could have been self defense, up until he buried her body lmao. With todays laws he was fucked either way once he killed her.

[Jotaux]

So you think what he did is acceptable? Why didn't he go to a shelter?

There are very few male abuse shelters, I believe the only one in canada was shut down the past year.

I doubt this guy has any evidence to support the domestic abuse.

[the game]

What you mean the profession that my family has been apart of for a couple of generations now that I respect immensely but can still criticize when need be? That one? Remember though innocent before proven guilty, even for the thugs and animals Mayhem.

and cops right Dug?

[xChurch]

I tend to lose sympathy the second someone tries to hide their crime. If it really was self-defense, and he had some sort of evidence (bloody knife, wounds, etc) then why not come clean after the fact? I don't usually by the "I panic'd excuse", I mean there are so many cops shows on these days how can you not understand some basics of the law, like that being a shitty excuse.

[Dug]

and cops right Dug?

Yes. Now you're catching on.

[Ilikegreenfire]

Yeah, basically my thoughts. He buried her and at no point came forward or tried to fix it. On top of that, while it is plausible that he might have strangled her to death in self-defense, in conjunction with the other circumstances, it seems a bit suspect given that strangulation would generally render the person no longer a threat before killing them. Reading some of the other articles, the prosecution apparently thinks he killed her for infidelity, which would fit with the behavior a lot better.

Ya he was fucked the moment he tryend to cover it up. If it eve was self defence

Your right on the strengulation, strangling someone to death is not a quick thing, you pretty much have to have complete physical controll over them to do it. Meaning he had her subdued if not initially he sure as he'll would have when she started to black out, he could easly have thrown her down and called the cops.

- - - Updated - - -

The suspect alleges that the domestic violence lasted a decade. Why didn't he leave?

I am sure the guy in this story is guilty, but you do realize this is the same logic some people use when victem blaming female domestic abuse victems, right?

[Ghostpanther]

So you think what he did is acceptable? Why didn't he go to a shelter?

If it was true self defense, yes. But this case sounds too fishy for a self defense claim. Why did he not call the police after he shot her and tell them she had attacked him? His attempt to cover it up , makes for a piss poor claim for self defense.

[I Push Buttons]

How exactly do you strangle someone in self defense?

I think a better question is how do you stuff someone's dead body in a plastic container, dig a hole in your basement, put the container in the hole, and then fill the hole with cement... In self-defense?

[Ghostpanther]

I think a better question is how do you stuff someone's dead body in a plastic container, dig a hole in your basement, put the container in the hole, and then fill the hole with cement... In self-defense?

Exactly! I missed the part about strangling her in self defense. Thought he shot her. That makes this case even more unlikely to be a self defense.

[Ilikegreenfire]

The argument that death by strangulation takes considerably more time than simply rendering the victim unconcious makes sense. How much longer are we talking here though? As far as I know we are talking single digit seconds between unconciousness and potential lethality here. If you got a raging harpy with a knife going at you and are in a state of pure panic that doesnt seem like what any person, least someone themselves involved, would recognise as excessive force.
There still is strong ground for a defense here.

Honestly hiding the body after the struggle occured does not seem the least indicative or an admission of guilt to me. It is just a colossal fuckup.

Thing is strangling her if she has a knife opens you up to be stabbed repeaditly, can't see that happening, atleast not without needing an ambulance after. If this was the case I think just about everyone would think he is justified. But you arnt going to be able to strangle someone while they and constantly stabbing you.

He apparently never got medical aid and was able to burry her. So I doubt she had a knife

[A dot Ham]

It means man hating because that's the definition you and others want to give it because of your own selection bias in dealing with crazy nutters on the internet. Anyway your feelings on feminism aside your logic is still faulty since you're simply saying a bad apple spoils the bunch when you more than likely would not apply that same logic to white supremacists aligning with republicans, "bad cops" etc.

You can't say feminists shouldn't have to "reclaim the word" or whatever if you're going to be inconsistent about other topics.

Oh look someone has lost an argument and now its getting personal. Big surprise there. If you want to hang on to it... more power to you. A noble cause in my opinion. But the cards are stacked against you I'm afraid, and like I said a new term has emerged, or rather been adopted by people who subscribe to the original meaning... a word that is being recognized here, on the internet, and in every day talks: egalitarian. People wouldn't have invented or sought out another word to define themselves and their beliefs if it wasn't necessary to do so.

I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do. Do whatever you want. But the very fact that you NEED to clarify or restate the definition means that it has changed. Like it or not it has changed.

If by default you, me, this forum, your parents, your boss... makes the assumption, when you claim to be a feminist, that you are a vile, man hating, beast, causing you to immediately (prompted or not) qualify that with "I want equality for women" means the definition has changed.

Honestly I don't understand the need to hang on to the word anyway. Egalitarian more correctly and completely defines your goals anyway, more so than even when feminism meant equality for women. Its also more inclusive so that everyone who believes in equality for women, equality for all can share the same positive message, not just women who think there should be equality for women.

[Dug]

Oh look someone has lost an argument and now its getting personal. Big surprise there. If you want to hang on to it... more power to you. A noble cause in my opinion. But the cards are stacked against you I'm afraid, and like I said a new term has emerged, or rather been adopted by people who subscribe to the original meaning... a word that is being recognized here, on the internet, and in every day talks: egalitarian. People wouldn't have invented or sought out another word to define themselves and their beliefs if it wasn't necessary to do so.

I'm not saying what you should or shouldn't do. Do whatever you want. But the very fact that you NEED to clarify or restate the definition means that it has changed. Like it or not it has changed.

If by default you, me, this forum, your parents, your boss... makes the assumption, when you claim to be a feminist, that you are a vile, man hating, beast, causing you to immediately (prompted or not) qualify that with "I want equality for women" means the definition has changed.

Honestly I don't understand the need to hang on to the word anyway. Egalitarian more correctly and completely defines your goals anyway, more so than even when feminism meant equality for women. Its also more inclusive so that everyone who believes in equality for women, equality for all can share the same positive message, not just women who think there should be equality for women.

Nothings getting personal I'm simply pointing out the lack of consistency in the logic you presented as it pertains to you. The label doesn't actually matter it's just blatantly obvious to anyone outside of the realm of internet twitter beefs that your idea of mainstream definitions changing just because you say so is laughable. You think the label is tainted because your experience with feminists is in the bubble of social media discourse where anonymity gives people the ability to be as shit and batshit as they want.

See your problem is you think I'm denying the existence of radical feminists who are man hating harpies, no, I simply don't subscribe to the notion that they're a majority or that real life people act like the twitter activist personas they put on. I know lots of self proclaimed feminists, even some that are conservatives and they're just fine with the label and they aren't screeching at me like spergs or accusing me of "mansplaining" or whatever other crap.