Man claims he Killed wife in self defence after domestic abuse

[Deleted]

Another case where I hope the dogma of "having family is desirable" fades away or changed heavily thanks to next gen tech.
To cripple yourself for family because it's taught to be the best you can do is just wrong.

[kail]

He severely hurts his case by hiding the body. It's now impossible to investigate the scene that happened a year ago.

[Deleted]

https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada...n-self-defence

Can you believe this? Basically trying to make a mockery out of the justice system!
Let's hope the judiciary doesn't stand for this.

Maybe he did kill her in self-defense and then panicked. All anybody seems to know at this point is that she ended up dead and he disposed of her body. How is for the police to find out and the guilt is for the court to determine.

[Deamon002]

2) As for the poll I'm not going to nitpick because we both know how that goes with either side showing polling. All I'll say is okay fine, a lot of people don't label themselves feminists yet they still stand for the basic principle. A principle in which a lot of people... even here... still disagree with since some people think women are already on the same level as men or even above them with greater privileges and in some cases they are as far as custody disputes go and sexual assault cases.

Could you clarify what you mean exactly? You say "a lot of people don't label themselves feminists yet they still stand for the basic principle", by which I assume you mean equal rights for men and women. But then in the next sentence you claim a lot of people don't agree with that principle, because they think women already have an equal or higher level of rights and privileges?

That makes no sense. If you believe that women already have equal rights to men, how does it follow from that that they don't believe in equal rights?

[Dug]

Could you clarify what you mean exactly? You say "a lot of people don't label themselves feminists yet they still stand for the basic principle", by which I assume you mean equal rights for men and women. But then in the next sentence you claim a lot of people don't agree with that principle, because they think women already have an equal or higher level of rights and privileges?

That makes no sense. If you believe that women already have equal rights to men, how does it follow from that that they don't believe in equal rights?

The poster I was replying to was implying that people that are pushing for women's rights, that are normal and not screeching nutters, are moving away from the feminist label because it's been taken over by the nutters and that "equal rights for women" and "feminism" are no longer the same thing and his proof of this is that regular people wouldn't be trying to reclaim the label if it wasn't the case. I disagree but I'll go with it just to entertain it.

So if we follow that logic it sounds fine but then you consider the reality and the reality is a lot of people that are anti-feminist aren't even anti-crazy they're just anti-women's rights. Or rather they just don't view the problems women have in modern society as serious and as something that you can dismiss. So does the label even matter if the crazies and regular people are just going to be lumped together anyways?

tl;dr: I didn't mean those who stand for the principle and those who think they are already equal are the same. I mean those who think they're already equal will be dismissive no matter the label women's rights advocates use. And no matter the behavior of the advocates, crazy or sane.

[Deamon002]

The poster I was replying to was implying that people that are pushing for women's rights, that are normal and not screeching nutters, are moving away from the feminist label because it's been taken over by the nutters and that "equal rights for women" and "feminism" are no longer the same thing and his proof of this is that regular people wouldn't be trying to reclaim the label if it wasn't the case. I disagree but I'll go with it just to entertain it.

So if we follow that logic it sounds fine but then you consider the reality and the reality is a lot of people that are anti-feminist aren't even anti-crazy they're just anti-women's rights. Or rather they just don't view the problems women have in modern society as serious and as something that you can dismiss. So does the label even matter if the crazies and regular people are just going to be lumped together anyways?

tl;dr: I didn't mean those who stand for the principle and those who think they are already equal are the same. I mean those who think they're already equal will be dismissive no matter the label women's rights advocates use. And no matter the behavior of the advocates, crazy or sane.

Well, yeah; if you're advocating for something which is already the case, i.e. equal rights for women, then naturally people are going to be dismissive, because in that case your advocacy is a massive waste of time. At best.

At worst, it can be seen as a supremacist movement, trying to get more privileges for an already privileged class. A perception which isn't helped by the behaviour of feminist organisations, which seem to be run exclusively by said crazies. In my opinion, anyone who believes in equality should oppose such a movement.

[Lord Pebbleton]

"It wasn't me! She hit my knife with her side... multiple times! It was so horrible! I felt so abused!"

[mittacc]

Uh dude. He hid the body. He didn't call the cops. You think innocent people do that?

Probably scared that he would get accused of unprovoked murder/manslaughter which is exactly what you're doing. Why wouldn't a murder call the cops and yell "self defense" if that's what innocent people do? Just get into a fight or inflict bruises on yourself and then proceed with the murder only to say "self defense". The least risky option for a man in this situation is actually to just make sure nobody gets to know if possible.

[Tennis]

Maybe he did kill her in self-defense and then panicked. All anybody seems to know at this point is that she ended up dead and he disposed of her body. How is for the police to find out and the guilt is for the court to determine.

Well we can look forward to his trial. Justice will be served.

Also how do you strangle someone in self defense?

[Ahovv]

Well we can look forward to his trial. Justice will be served.

Also how do you strangle someone in self defense?

Dunno, but from my perspective if you attack someone with a deadly force/weapon you have lost the right to your life. I don't really care if she died in the process, if it's true that she attacked him first.

Not saying the guy did nothing wrong. But it's absolutely retarded to attack somebody. Violent people (and genetics) should be purged from society.

[tss]

Anyone notice Tennisass posts like Trump with a slightly better vocabulary?

[GennGreymane]

If it can be shown it was self defense, than yeah it shouldnt be a problem. Self defense exists for a reason.

[Deamon002]

Also how do you strangle someone in self defense?

If she used violence first, that's self defence. It's not at all hard to see how a struggle like that could get out of hand; someone attacks you, it turns into a struggle, in the confusion you grab whatever you can get your hands on that seems to have an affect, after a while they stop moving and it turns out it was their throat.

Seriously, close quarters fighting between panicky people who don't know what they're doing is a massive clusterfuck, weird shit happens that you would almost have to be a contortionist to pull off on purpose. More often than not the outcome is determined by sheer random chance as to who happens to hit or grab something important first.

[Hotmail]

Guy sounds like a pussy tbh. Sergio Olivia took five .38 Special bullets right under the solar plexus, which were non-lethal due to his insanely thick abdominal wall, and went right back to his wife afterward. He reportedly gave her a hug and said, "I love you" as he came out of the surgery room, and they had savage sex all night long afterward.

The morale of the story is: don't be a wuss or you might have to bury your wife afterward.

[Deleted]

Well we can look forward to his trial. Justice will be served.

Also how do you strangle someone in self defense?

I don't know. I've never strangled anyone. Somebody attacks you and you grab hold of their neck and don't let go before they stop attacking you? That'd probably fit the bill. At any rate, I'm not saying the guy isn't guilty, I'm just pointing out that assuming either scenario is pointless because we simply don't know.
Maybe they'll throw the book at him for both murder and disposing of the body. Maybe he'll walk for murder and only get a sentence for hiding her. Maybe he'll walk on both. What he did or didn't do is up to the police to investigate and the court to determine.

[Deleted]

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

Will you judge woman on the same standard? Way did she not go to a shelter?

- - - Updated - - -

If he killed her in self defense, he has to prove it. If he fails on it, jail him for a long long time.

No "innocent until proven guilty" It is the prosecutor's work to prove that he did not kill here in self defense.

[Deleted]

Also how do you strangle someone in self defense?

In the same maner people with handgun fire a second shot after the first shot hit and claim self defense, I was afriad X would continue to attack me if I did stop my attack. Or I have no experience of strangel peopel but my goal was to only stranger here to unconsciousness but miscalculated. Then he did trie to use proportionate force hence legally self defence.

But try to hide the body after do not signal self defence.....

- - - Updated - - -

There is no way to prove he was not acting in self defense at this point but does reasonable doubt extend to extenuating circumstances?

The same problem as in Taylor vs Zimmerman, nobady outsider can prove that it was Zimmerman that attack Taylor but we must acepte Zimmerman story that Taylor attack Zimmerman, even if Zimmerman did behave very suspicious like staking Taylor.

[Mehrunes]

Yes, I do believe self defense and domestic violence are things that exist. Now, him hiding the body puts self defense in question, but does not rule it out entirely.

Probably because there are very few male domestic abuse centers, and those that keep trying to get opened are shut down by raging feminists butthurt mad Men are also getting help.

Which did happened to the only one in Canada. Admittedly, it got shut down in 2013, so after this case has happened, but still, one for entire Canada, which is a rather large country. Plus there's the usual DV aspects that may make the victim not pursue help for various reasons.

"Cops, my wife is abusing me" "LOLOLOLOLOOL"

Every case ever of male domestic abuse.

Then there's the chance that he may be arrested by the cops and/or asked to leave the house even if he's the one making a report.

While women make the majory of victims of domestic abuse, consider that there are not only huge stigmata attached for them, but even more so for men and there are literally no services of the kind desperately needed in such a situation for men.

Not by some immense margin though.

You're making assumptions. In Canada there are many places for him to turn. This is Canada a world leader.

Yeah, world leader indeed.

Please don't spread lies!

There many shelters in that city. If you don't know then at least do some research! Posting lies are not good!

^^^This is just one of many. Yet! Yet we still have posters on here spreading fake facts. How sad!

Shelters were not listed among the help provided to male victims offered by Calgary Counseling Center you just quoted. You didn't disprove what @Immortan Rich said for squat. Also, CCC has whooping 2 stars on Yelp, with the reviewers saying things like "They caused me more stress than the problem I was trying to get help for."

Mostly by other men...

1. Mostly. 2. How does the gender of the people laughing matter to what @Immortan Rich has said?

http://www.calgaryherald.com/life/ca...690/story.html

Oh look. The guy who founded that shelter - THE ONLY SHELTER DEDICATED TO MALE ABUSE VICTIMS and himself an abuse victim for 20 years at the hands of his wife - commited suicide. Alleged reason: The constant abuse suffered since he opend his shelter from various groups and that it had to be closed down 3 years ago because funding ran out and he couldnt secure any from the government who he felt refused to acknowledge the necessity of the programm.

Shhh, Canada is totes world leader!

[Tennis]

Yes, I do believe self defense and domestic violence are things that exist. Now, him hiding the body puts self defense in question, but does not rule it out entirely.




Which did happened to the only one in Canada. Admittedly, it got shut down in 2013, so after this case has happened, but still, one for entire Canada, which is a rather large country. Plus there's the usual DV aspects that may make the victim not pursue help for various reasons.




Then there's the chance that he may be arrested by the cops and/or asked to leave the house even if he's the one making a report.




Not by some immense margin though.




Yeah, world leader indeed.




Shelters were not listed among the help provided to male victims offered by Calgary Counseling Center you just quoted. You didn't disprove what @Immortan Rich said for squat. Also, CCC has whooping 2 stars on Yelp, with the reviewers saying things like "They caused me more stress than the problem I was trying to get help for."




1. Mostly. 2. How does the gender of the people laughing matter to what @Immortan Rich has said?




Shhh, Canada is totes world leader!

Toronto Sun is not a legitimate source. You might as well be quoting the Daily Mail or someone's blog.

[Altrec]

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

Probably because you evil Canadians won't fund men's shelters so they no longer exist?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/ca...ack-of-funding

Poor guy tried and you all pushed him into suicide.