Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but this seems premeditated. maybe there is a law about self-defence/defending your children or something?
In UK law self-defence is a full defence to a charge of murder, so I assume that's what she pled. All the jury would need to be satisfied of for it to work is that she was in immediate danger.
I.e. if he wasn't asleep she wouldn't have shot him, and if she didn't shoot him he would have killed her or one of her children.
Drugging has incapacitated him. From that point on;
Option 1 run away.
Option 2 phone police
Option n murder
I'd also assume more detailed evidence of his abuse was given at the trial, and that her barrister probably argued that he'd left her in a mental position where she felt killing him was the only way to protect her and her family. Whether or not it's right to let a woman who carefully planned someone else's murder walk scot-free is another question, but I can probably see how a jury decided that it was.
I wouldn't be happy if somebody in Britain got away with that - I wouldn't call it self defence.
you'd be unlikely to succeed with that defence in this country.
Probably it would be less likely to work, meaning the evidence was clearly very strong.
I agree with wishpig. WTF is quakerstoy's problem?
I assume she pled self defence, but the drugging part would seem to preclude that.
it would probably be Manslaughter on the basis of Provocation.
WELL SOMEONE HAD TO.
it ISN'T considered Self Defence.
That's not to say that they would be locked up here. Generally they would be convicted on Manslaughter and then conditionally discharged.
Was her life in danger at that exact point?
Did she have other options?
is not in IMMEDIATE danger. If the husband was being threatening at the time, and his wife stabbed him, then Self Defence would absolutely be a defence.
Since he was drugged and unconscious, I don't see how this could be so.
I suppose it would depend on how abusive and unstable he was.
But generally no.
then shooting him in cold blood in front of his children is not a crime. Sending a 16 year old out to buy a gun.
ps Can you explain why phoning the police is such a bad idea
You are defending a woman who killed a defenceless man in front of her children. You have limited grounds to do so, as you know none of the details of this case.
I do have sympathy for the woman. Hopefully the jury are able to put emotions to one side and judge a case as it is presented.
In this circumstance, the man was in no position to harm her, yet she shot his face. For me, it will never be ok to blast a defenceless person in the brain.
In your hypothetical situation, if the police did nothing, it would have been for a lack of evidence. If there was no evidence, then I do not see how she could have been aquitted. Surely this means the evidence was there?
by all accounts, these days police take allegations of domestic violence very seriously. the fact is none of us know the true facts, including you who dashes into the thread calling people cunts because they point out that this wasn't self-defence. letting people murder eachother, whatever the reason or justification, sets a dangerous precedent. hopefully this is a case where the judges were right, ultimately we may never know the full story
I would not be happy if she was not prosicuted under British law. I don't know what Australian law is on this subject so can't comment on whether the verdict was right or wrong.
Morally, I am not happy with the idea that one person can choose when to end the life of another.
but it's generally outweighed by the knowledge that a jury decided she should go free. I'd certainly rather the children had at least one free parent to take care of them.
Someone in a neighbouring town had an abusive husband, he got put in jail and then had a restraining order put on him, he broke into her house and murdered her.
He also might have woken up to discover that his wife had drugged him before the police arrived, or the police might have arrived and not found enough evidence to charge him, both of which would have exacerbated the situation.
You've convinced me to kill anybody who ever wrongs me.
The fact is that if you're in an abusive long-term relationship the whole situation is based around possessiveness and opression. And we are obviously discussing this as a unique situation so saying stuff like that is pointless.
you'd think she wouldn't let her kids be right next to this when it happened.
If anything I understand why she did it, but she seems a bit irresponsible if she lets her own 16 year old daughter fo on the streets and buy a gun off someone who could potentially be very dangerous.
Also she really should have just drugged him and then called the police.
this wouldn't be covered by self-defence in English law, because it's not proportionate.
It would probably qualify for the loss of control defence though (what was formerly provocation). And maybe also diminished responsibility depending on the medical evidence.
resulting in manslaughter convictions.
Diminished capacity is a sudden and temporary loss of control, which is negatived in this situation by the facts that she poisoned his food and sent her daughter to buy a gun.
that's the test for provocation you just set out.
and R v Ahluwalia and R v Humphries may allow it
Yeah, fair enough.
Did she understand what she was doing? Yes.
Did she form a rational judgment? Yes.
Did she exercise self-control? Yes.
You think? I'm not so sure.
And anyway, the material question is not whether she did it but whether her capacity to do it was substantially impaired.
"I put pyjamas on, I tied my hair back, I had socks on, gloves, took all my jewellery off" sounds more methodical than mental. She also bought a silenced gun and shot him twice at close range in the head rather than emptying the clip into him as soon as he dozed off.
It's a given that she did it if diminished capacity is even being discussed, as like you said it's only a partial defence. From going on what's in that article though it doesn't look like her capacity was impaired at any point of the killing.
IMO under English Law it's probably 60/40 in favour of her being convicted of murder.
lose her self-control suddenly or temporarily. But this whole change in the law was motivated by the idea that this shouldn't be important.
I think it's plausible that the apparent plan of action in this case is attributable to a reduced ability to exercise self-control, precipitated by the abuse. If a jury buys that then she's most of the way to securing a manslaughter conviction.