Really sad story about a domestic violence victim who died after being shot by her abuser, who was also a police officer. The incident occurred in 2006, but the family has sued the police department for their handling of the incident. TRIGGER WARNING.
More from NPR about exclusion of women's ski jumping in the 2010 winter Olympics, despite the Canadian Supreme Court ruling that it is in fact discriminatory. (For background see Vanessa's post and Honeybee's post).
More musings on why Palin decided to quit from the NYTimes.
A soap opera star decides to quit rather than a play out a gay plot line.
Talking Points Memo has the text of Sotomayor's opening statement from her hearing today.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: What We Missed.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14919
Anyone else read about "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvy) disrupting Her Honor's hearing?
Wow. I knew that people got arrested but I didn't know that she was one of them.
The article from AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SOTOMAYOR_PROTESTER?SITE=NCAGW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
AP identifies all of the disruptors as anti-abortion protesters.
On the domestic violence story:
"There was no evidence that he intended to kill his wife."
No evidence?! He used a fecking GUN! And shot her at point range! No evidence?
I think I seriously might have to stop reading these types of reports. For one, as someone who has experienced violence at the hands of several men in her life, one who is still in her life, it fuels too much rage. This story seriously enrages me. Clearly this man received special treatment from his buddies. Sickens me.
Furthermore, what really bothers me about this, is that if this guy had shot another guy like this, (say if he were arguing with one of his pals and shot him in the same way), he would clearly be charged with murder. There would be no way out of it. But because it has the term "domestic" attached to it, (oh it's just his wife), it is considered less of a crime. Two things bad about this: Domestic implies that his wife was his own property, and he destroyed his own property, therefore it is more a personal matter. This devalues her life, and makes her less of a person, both before and after her death. This is completely unacceptable.
I really think we should do away with the word "domestic" altogether. Violence is violence, and murder is murder, no matter who it is done to, or where. Why don't we stop with the passive language?
That sentence stood out to me too. I'm sorry, but "I shot my wife in the face when we were having an argument about household chores BUT I didn't mean to kill her" doesn't hold much water with me. It's too fucking late.
Even if he didnt mean to kill her, he shot her!! Anyone willing to go that far is an abuser and has SERIOUS problems. He shot her in the face, point blank. Close range. No matter what he "expected to happen", that is murder and extream violence. How anyone could bear to hurt a loved one in any way I cannot understand, and I have seen people experiance violence. How could anyone lay a finger on someone they love, let alone a gun?? Im not naieve, I have seen things like this happen to friends and loved once..I just cannot understand it..this man is sick and cannot be let off the hook..he just cant..
I am wondering if this is just one of those cases where the journalist just got it wrong. The article says the judge thought it was classic "voluntary manslaughter." The "voluntary" part usually means that he did intend to kill. The "manslaughter" would indicate that there was no advance planning. So it would have to happen unplanned, and yet at the moment he shot her, he was intending to kill (and the fact that he shot her in the face could serve as evidence that he intended the shoot to kill, rather than just wound).
I noticed this also. I think the verdict that came down at the end was that it was voluntary manslaughter, but at first everyone, including the assulter, was trying to prove that it wasnt planned. Im not sure that voluntary is the same as planned..but I dont know if this fits under "premeditated" crime or not. Ill do some research.
No, the "voluntary" doesn't refer to the planning, the "manslaughter" part does. The "voluntary" means he intended to kill, even if he never planned on doing so in advance.
Ah, here is what I found when I looked it up:
-----------------Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. In the Uniform Crime Reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation it is referred to as non negligent manslaughter. Intent to Kill
Intent to kill is normally present during a voluntary manslaughter case, but is not required. Since most heat of passion and imperfect self-defense killings involve intent to kill, typically voluntary manslaughter involve intentional killings. However, there are occasions when intent to kill is not present, although malice is, for example, when a person responds to oral provocation by engaging in physical altercation. The provocation is sufficient so that his response is justified. Should the response result in the death of the provoker, the crime is either voluntary manslaughter or second degree murder, depending on the jurisdiction.
...--------------------------------------------
I thought the same as you, that voluntary meant the abuser has planned to kill the victim. Some of these terms get very complicated. Apparently voluntary manslaughter cases can include intent to kill, but not always. There is no provocation in this case however, but it seems like a much broader term than I thought at first. Its not clear still whether he was charged with premeditation because a case under this name may or may not include premeditation.
I never said that "voluntary" requires planning - planning and intent are two very different things.
He plead guilty, which he probably did in exchange from some consideration. Reading the articles and whatnot, it certainly sounds like the plea agreement took the charges down from 2nd degree murder to voluntary manslaughter, in exchange for him pleading guilty and waving his rights to appeal.
The rest of it is kind of messy. There's a lot of allegations about the circumstances that seem hard to substantiate, but may well be true. There some indications he didn't think she would die, which might be sufficient for a jury to only convict of voluntary manslaughter rather than 2nd degree murder. Seems dubious to me, but I'm just a dipshit on the internet.
Did anybody else notice the picture for the Sarah Palin thing? I mean, is she SIGNING a kid? Did someone hand her their child to sign? I've heard of kissing babies, but daaammmmnnn.
I really dont mean to sound picky or rude but it really bothers me when people refer to something violent as an "incident".. not that I havent done it myself, of course I have, and usually people do not mean it as demeaning, as I know Miriam did not, but I just have to say, calling a murder an incident downplays the severity of it all. Im sorry to seem so picky. A close friend of mine was raped several (talking dozens and dozens) of times by the same person, and every time someone refered to what she endured as an "incident" it took some of the severity of what happened away from her. Thats why I had to say something, im sorry to offend anyone, and I know that Miriam did not mean that wording offensivly.
I definitely understand where you're coming from with the "incident" usage. The problem is, murder is a legal term. It implies a premeditated act that takes someone's life. Without that determination, I don't know of another word that would fill that gap. While awkward and unwieldy, I wouldn't know what else to call it.
It's not technically murder until someone's been convicted. Until then, it's an act of violence which ends in death. If a journalist were to write "murdered" and the police not determine it to be so, the journalist would be in very deep trouble and have questions of bias and integrity thrown hir* way.
*gender neutral pronoun since this journalist is hypothetical and therefor neither a man nor a woman.
Yeah but while I do understand what you are saying, there still seems to be a lot of phrasing that would break away from the usage of "incident". Also, while I understand what you said about a journalist and the police, that doesnt really comply with this story, because the abuser has already been convicted of murder.
I wasnt necessarily saying to use "murder", maybe something like "the terrible violence" or something like that, just a word that brings more light on what actually happened. Because an "incident" can be used for a wide range of things, many of which are not extreame as violence is.
I always get so worried that when I comment on these posts I wont live up to the mature standards I see in many conversations, im very sorry if my reply sounded at all rude. In fact I really appreciate someone taking the time to respond and start a discussion.
A few stories of interest.
1) Two Soldiers here in Baghdad were charged with indecent acts, by recording and distributing videos of fellow Soldiers showering. I'll be writing about this and the Army-supported sexist MWR program later this week.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/13/iraq.soldiers.charged/index.html
2) An Olympic-hopeful is opening a brothel in hopes of financially supporting his Olympic-bid.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/07/13/new.zealand.brothel.olympics/index.html
3) There is an ad on Feministing I feel I should let readers know about. It's the one about "free federal grants." Ladies and gentlemen, it's a scam - and you'll end up losing hundreds of dollars for it. I wouldn't click that link if I were you.
Regarding women's ski jumping - it was the Supreme Court of B.C. - not the Canadian Supreme Court.
See for instance:
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/amateur/story/2009/07/10/bc-olympic-women-ski-jump-decision.html
Thank you for pointing this out. The decision, although not beneficial to women ski jumpers does explicitly mention that VANOC (the Olympic organizing committee)is subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This opens VANOC to a number of charter challenges in regards to how they treat protesters at the games and how they approach delivering many of the services that they are organizing. I am interested to see how quickly BC Civil Liberties jumps on this.
Although this was a loss the decision can be used to potentially benefit other women. In particular the decision extends Charter protection when government activities are delivered by contract (so contracting out does not absolve a government body from the responsibility of ensuring that the body adheres to Charter principles). This is very interesting (in a legal sense)and I am curious to see how anti-poverty groups run with it.
All in all, although it was a loss for women ski jumpers the decision does open up the field for future challenges of on the part of social justice organizations.