Deceit, lies, secrets, and character flaws weave their way into the lives of each family member and corrupt the quest for a solid foundation. Joseph and Emma experience love at first sight. He awakens in her dormant lust and unquenchable desire, but their love story is besieged by powerful circumstances beyond her control and his dedication to England and the British Royal Navy. What starts as a romantic journey ends in tragedy.
Fate deals the couple a disastrous blow and the irony that follows is so twisted that the next generations suffer the consequences. Direitos autorais. I doubt it. Right or wrong, as Stella says, when we hear he had a disabled wife we start to think "well, I can see why maybe he snapped. It may never be known what caused this tragedy, unless the suicide note reveals some relevant information and certainly no one commenting here, including the author and myself , can possibly be in a position to pass judgement.
I was merely presenting another possibility about the circumstances. I do not condone for one minute the outcome, it's tragic, it's not fair - but unfortunately, life is seldom fair and it is full of uncertainties. Rhonda: You? Though trends are changing, it?
Editorial Reviews. About the Author. SHERRIE LUEDER was born on November 13, in Tracy, Minnesota and christened Sherrie Rae Taarud. She would. A shocking true story of domestic violence, child abuse, and a mother's fatal journey with a very evil man. [ Janyce Hansen Unsolved Case, Aurora.
And so, this highly stressed man grabbed a gun and murdered his family before killing himself. Research suggests that intimate partner violence precedes 70 per cent of all cases of? Men Who Murder Their Families? The presenters concluded that? Prior domestic violence is by far the number-one risk factor in these cases.? Perhaps our soul-searching for answers as to the? As I said to Ann above , I was not making excuses, I was presenting another view, other than the author's - whom I think was incorrect in saying the murdered woman's disability had altered people's judgement, with regard the husband's actions.
I also think that the author's failure to acknowledge circumstances other than her 'cut and dried' judgement, in spite of knowing nothing of the actual facts, other than the outcome, shows her up as having a narrow, intolerant view.
The end result is a family is dead - an absolute tragedy - and we should not condemn that about which we have no facts. Taxed, I agree with you. Stella's comments are too generalised. I too am horrified at what happened and there can be no excuse for this act of violence and I think a lot of people would fit into that box. While some people may try and excuse the actions because of the perceived "pressures" that Hunt was under that does not mean that the act is downgraded by all. Those who promote Geoff Hunt as a victim are those close to him and their comments were made close to the actual act and I think as a result of disbelief that the person could engage in such an act.
But over time the often perception changes. The same thing occurred in the Baden-Clay case, some in his family simply refused to believe that hew as capable of such an act. Hunt, like Baden-Clay could have walked away but chose violence instead and in the end it was about them not the deceased.
With Pistorious the defence tried to shift the reasons for his behaviour but I am sure that the vast majority of people saw that this was not a viable justification for his actions.
The judge made it clear that she was seeing the case in the light of the evidence according to law not from through the prism of his relationship with his mother. This is not about disability, it is about male violence against women and children and should remain as such. C'mon Greg, it's nothing like the Baden-Clay case.
Baden-Clay's actions are easily construed as rational. We need to see more facts before making a judgement, but to me me it looks like a mental health issue, but above all it is a tragedy. A tragedy that people want to use to push their agendas. Actually Jack, it's quite easy to characterise all deviant behaviour as irrational, there was a good piece by a psychologist a while ago arguing quite logically that the whole issue of not guilty by reason of insanity was arbitrary, crimes are either rational or they're not, the line between one and the other is subjective and artificial, and can be drawn easily to include all violent crimes or none of them.
An excellent point, James. It's an issue that vexes me as well. We often hear that a perpetrator could not have been rational in order to commit whatever nasty crime being discussed. But how far do we take that? Is it the case that all murders are committed in a moment of temporary insanity or irrationality?
Surely if the perpetrator was sane and rational the murder wouldn't have happened, right? Sane and rational people don't need to do any of those, so they all must be done in the fog of temporary insanity or irrationality. Um, yeah - we do make that distinction, but we don't absolve people of all responsibility. If someone kills another for money, we view them as acting more willfully than someone suffering from auditory or visual hallucinations due to mental illness.
People who attack another out of fear or as a result of abuse are treated more leniently by the law than those who do so out of spite. Both acts are 'rational', but are different morally, and are treated different accordingly. This comment is an excellent example of presumptuous and logically fallacious reasoning. The reason we have courts is due to need the to consider a specific incident separately.
We don't function on a binary, where we either accept rational intent or absolve all responsibility.
This is a laughable example of a false dichotomy taken to it's ultimate extreme. We consider charges on a spectrum, sentencing on a spectrum, and culpability on a spectrum. Attitudes like this border on absolutist thinking. Thanks, Eagle. Stridently put, cogent points, nice to see on the Drum.
In my defence, I will point towards the question marks and the 'it seems' in my post. They weren't rhetorical, but instead looking for a precise 'where' the discussed line gets drawn in any instance. It was a great leap forward when it started to be described as murder. GregL, I really think the article is talking about exactly what you are saying. She is saying that the act should not, and has not been downgraded. What the OP also talks about are risk factors for women in general when it comes to domestic abuse. And in part it IS about disability, as disabled women are more likely to suffer abuse and not be able to report it.
And I do have to disagree that it is a mental health issue. Nothing here has suggested the husband was suffering from mental illness. And it is not a tragedy except for the victims. It is a murder, and a crime. We should view it as such. It is an atrocity that we should stop attaching sentimentality to. There were victims, there was a crime, there was a murderer. It is just a shame the murderer escaped the law by suicide.
Lorn, you are writing here as though you are completely abreast of all the facts. Unless you lived in that household and witnessed what occurred, you have no credibility in making your claim. A point that seems to be overlooked by some commenting here - and I speak from personal experience - living with someone with a disability would sometimes try even the 'patience of Job'. Without trying to self-promote, I am known for my patience and caring nature, but honestly there are days when limits are sorely tested. Couldn't agree more Taxed. The author has been careless with the use of the word 'we'.
I was horrified and I remain horrified. There was no excuse and there is no excuse for what this man did. As someone who watched my son die in agony almost 4 years ago it is beyond me how anyone could point a gun at a child and cause them agony by shooting them dead. It is beyond me how anyone could shoot anyone. This act was vicious and I am offended by the author's assumption that 'we' have found ways to excuse him.
If 'we' means the media then go ahead and point the finger but she should not make assumptions that the rest of us have blindly followed the almighty pronouncements of the media. I agree. The 'we' here certainly doesnt apply to me. Anyone who guns down their wife and 3 children is an inhuman monster. I agree with you Ed. Anyone who harms defensless children and a person with a disabilty is more than a monster. I also wish to be excluded from "we". To Ed and lathimaro, while your self-righteous indignation might give you some brownie points among those who hold similar views, your outright rush to judgement about something of which you don't have all the facts, causes me to hope your numbers are few.
I think what Ed and lathimaro are saying is that Stella is wrong to suggest that 'we' somehow will think the murder of a woman with a disability something less heinous than the murder of a woman without a disability. There is no evidence that 'we' would come to any such conclusion. I think that Ed and lathimaro are telling us that in fact the community's opinion is the opposite of what Stella has asserted. That is certainly true of the law which loooks at crimes against the weak as more heinous than crimes against the strong. Apparently you didn't read my post Peter not a good look for a 'lawyer' - I was making the point that Ed and lathimaro - regardless of their correctly not supporting Stella's "we" - have, I will repeat, rushed to judgement on something about which they don't have all the facts.
Rhonda , I totally agree with you. Without all the facts I just can't see how they think they have a right to judge, either way! Sadly you are wasting your breath on most! There is a lot going on in this tragic case, but the least significant thing is that a tiny number of people in the community might think less of the crime of murder because one of the victims had a disability. I agree with you Taxed. Not only was the wife brutally murdered, but also the three children as well!
Whether or not the wife had some sort of disability, the horror of this does not lessen. I'm not sure of Stella's motivation in this article, but I hope she isn't trying to put some sort of "victim mentality" into it that only tends to frustrate people and put up more barriers to counter what has been broken down already? I agree this is too much of a generalisation. However Stella does have a point, if we take the case of the farmer who recently shot the environmental officer, they were coming out of the woodwork to make excuses for him, other landowners who disliked having anyone telling them what to do with their land, local media, local MPs most with a political agenda.
All too often we have " agendas" at play when things like this happen. It overlooks the fact that it is completely inexcusable in almost any circumstances for instance if your family were about to fall captive by barbarians, ISIS, certain street gangs , then it might be kinder to end their lives as well as your own. But this act cannot by any stretch of the imagination be thought of as a kindness, it's not excusable in fact it's irredeemably selfish. By all means if you feel suicidal then that is your right to end your life, but you have no excuse whatsoever to take other lives just because you feel that you " own" your wife and children.
Guys who wipe out their families as well as themselves are despicable. It's sad that the media and bystanders seem to want to try and find excuses that downplay their acts. I don't believe the entire premise of Stella's article is based in fact at all. They are distinct concepts, with wildly different intentions. Being fair to the OP When I read it out of context, that line does look a bit strange, but I think what she was saying was that the way we view the murderer is coloured by the way the victim is presented.
And in this case, the media 'softened' the blow of a family massacre by painting it up as something with some kind of sense and sentimentality. I thinks she was making the point that it shouldn't be able to make us less horrified. We should be more horrified if anything at all, not less. Yet, by painting the picture of the long-suffering carer, we do often perceive a murder as something less 'horrific' because it is given a sense of logic.
It is actually quite clear in the quote from Nina Funnell. Reading the first two lines, there is an immediate feeling of senselessness, and mindless violence. Yet if we're told first that a loving family man broke down and entered his wife's place of work and took her life and the lives of his children What we 'feel' is different. Words are easy to use and easily affect how we feel, even if we logically, in our heads think: Oh no, I would not be less horrified.
It would have been better if the OP worded with an emphasis on the carer: And yet, when we hear that the murderer was caring for the disabled victim Just a difficult concept to word, but I don't think what the OP meant was that we automatically feel okay if the victim was a disabled woman. It depends on how the murderer was portrayed E.
The focus is not that the victim is a disabled woman, the article is more about our response if we think that the murderer somehow had an understandable 'reason' for wanting the victim dead. I have to agree with Taxed. But at the end of the day the man who shot his family, obviously believed they couldn't live without him.
Regardless of the issues he may have had, he was so self centred that he needed to kill them all. That is Family Violence at it's worst. No excuses for this man!! Using this women's disability to excuse his violence is just appalling!! The wife's ABI makes this crime worse, if it could be any worse. I found the statement 'we can find ourselves a little bit less horrified' bizarre too, and an odd bit of projection on the part of the author because it seems to be completely unrepresentative of what people actually did think.
I did find the whole 'decent family man' narrative shocking though. I'm assuming the media reported it verbatim from the townsfolk, who were probably just trying to rationalise something that can't be rationalised. Still, it should not have been reported as such. I'd prefer it if the media left the low-rent analysis to the coroner's inquest, and just reported the facts.
We really don't need to know how the guy's farm was going OK apparently , or the fact the woman struggled after a car accident at this stage, because we can't put any of it in context, and any interpretation now is likely to be either wrong, or hurtful to people. The only thing we can be sure of is that the husband was certainly deranged, but other than that, we can't pass judgement on him. There's nothing wrong with 'blaming' people, but it requires a full, objective analysis of all the circumstances before it's a legitimate thing to say about somebody and their actions.
Whenever I see that yet another man has viciously killed his children or partner I think: "What excuse is this one going to have". There is always some stress, some hardship, some excuse that supposedly explains or even justifies his actions. We even see some claiming that just being a male is so stressful these days that any man can be excused for violence. The fact is that most men do not do this kind of thing.
It is an abnormal action by a few individuals who have an inflated idea of their own importance and no concept of the rights of their children and partners. Skeptica and Molly K Let's not make this an attack on a gender huh? The quick disclaimer doesn't negate the matter that you've overlooked the fact that women kill husbands, kill babies and commit abuses too. Yes, but even accounting for the dark figure of crime and basing estimates on victimisation surveys, the statistics seem to indicate that the perpetrators of domestic abuse tend to be men and the victims women and children.
I'm not saying I agree with Skeptica, but a quick Google provides fairly good data on this, e. If deaths are a measure, women rarely murder men happy to be corrected in 'domestic violence' cases. Susan, in domestic violence case women usually get off with manslaughter, such as the woman who drugged her ex-husband, and cut his penis off when he awakened. She got 4 years because she had an insane delusion that he would take custody of their child. Another example on a Current Affair, a woman made an unprovoked attack on her husband with a hammer, he suffered serious head injuries but survived, she got something like three years.
If he had done the same to her she would have died for certain. Men are better at killing than women, but every case should be decided on its merits, not its gender. Don't forget the child victims of domestic violence. According to AIC research analyst Jenny Mouzos, in her report 'Homicidal Encounters, biological mothers account for about 35 per cent of all filicides about the same proportion as stepfathers and de factos , while biological fathers account for 29 per cent. This is not excusing abusive women, that itself needs to be addressed at another time, but it is obviously saying we have a huge problem with male entitled violence.
It's interesting cause it takes out a degree of gender biased preconception. Also do we have a rising problem of teenage and young adult children abusing their parent most often a mother? And let's say You also did not mention what the rate of women reporting violence is increasing at, so it's hard to tell if it's the general report of abuse rising or only the men reporting abuse in which case, cases of men being abused being reported should soon overtaken women!
What is your point exactly, Bev? My point? Britain for instance is running campaigns urging women to report DV but have introduced n a lesser scale campaigns urging men to do likewise. A harder task as many men are quite reluctant to report that their wife is beating them up. I have doubts about the stats you state, Bev can you give us a link?
However, as I said, even taking into account the dark figure of crime, including unreported crime, everything I've studied on the matter indicates that men are predominantly the perpetrators and women and children are predominantly the victims. I have yet to see anything credible which goes against that--but I'm happy to have a look at any materials, so long as they're reputable or at least peer-reviewed.
Most research suggests that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. Therefore, sexist attitudes towards women are probably one factor leading to domestic violence.
However, men are on the receiving end of at least a third of domestic violence and certain subgroups of women are more likely than others to be victims of domestic violence. Therefore, other factors contribute to domestic violence and it should be acceptable to discuss these factors. Ms Young wants to dismiss discussion of these other factors as victim-blaming or condoning murder, which is a shame, because it prevents her from fully understanding how these events happen. Susan Banks Gender wasn't involved here until the sexists in this case feminists brought it up. The discussion was about a parent killing a spouse and children, and whether the fact that the victim spouse having a disability had a bearing on the matter.
The article does not resort to stereotyping the way some of the comments here do, and when the argument degenerates into generalisations such as "yet another man has viciously killed his children or partner" then it becomes facile. Gender has everything to do with violence, both to others and self-inflicted. Men commit most crime against their partners, against strangers and have far higher rates of suicide by violent means. We are animals, our biology has a massive impact on our behaviour, and trying to argue otherwise is simply denial.
We can't address these issues until we acknowledge this. Men are inherently more violent than women, they have lower levels of empathy, suffer from conditions like autism and sociopathy at massively higher rates than women. Simple biological reality. By that arguement, what do you say about the over representation of aboriginal people in the justice system. Again a matter of biology? The problem is that domestic violence against men is vastly under reported as the statistic shows and violecne against men particularly by femals is still acceptable in our society.
A woman slaps a man in a pub, nothing is said, a man does the same thing and it is assault. The same situation exists on television where violent acts against woemn or showing women as stupid would not be acceptable, does not apply to males. Maybe he was as much a victim as they were.
He obviously had nothing to gain. What pushed him over the edge? I wonder. Was it his boss? What could drive someone to such despair? If Oscar Pistorius had taking his own life after killing his girlfriend, I might have felt some pity for him too, unless he is diagnosed as having mental health issues I will feel none. They were all victims, and perhaps his is the saddest story of all. Prove to me that he had no "Disability", and that that disability was not the cause. Do sane people behave that way? Poor mental health is a disability, and many go undiagnosed. By definition, all deviant behaviour is arguably mental illness.
Most people with mental illnesses or disabilities don't murder people. So, unless you are going to claim that we should feel sorry for the murderers who cut the heads off journalists because who would do such a thing without a mental illness , find another excuse. If they were to fall 'victim' themselves, they'd better hope they don't come across too many who share their current attitudes!
I noticed police reports spoke of the perpetrator having "snapped'. I wondered if there is any human physiological basis to someone "snapping" or even if the word is being used properly. Could not agree with this article more. If the thousands of men - or women - coping with stress and family issues and disabilities and financial problems DONT go around shooting their families and themselves, why are we excusing the ones that do? Molly , who is "we" and who excused anyone? Agree totally. Who is it that has said "Oh well, that alright then"?
Nobody in my hearing, and certainly not "We". The 'we' is the public that accept shoddy standards of journalism and victim blaming. Although I think perhaps Young's language is a little strong in parts, she does not exaggerate the fact that excuses are often found that serve to mitigate some of the 'blame' for perpetrators of this sort of crime.
And further, I believe Young is correct when she offers that the blame is often shared by the female victims of the crimes. Numerous cases over the years have caught my attention, such as: a report of a case where the fourteen year old daughter had been sexually abused by her father for six years was discussed in terms of the father's loss of his wife. The issue Young raises is not about domestic violence occurring, as much as how it discussed when it is reported. And on this point I totally concur with her. I don't hold with blaming victims, and I don't hold with excuses for domestic or any other violence.
If there was a report in the paper that did this, bag it by all means. But I think Stella with the very best of intentions shot wide of the mark in generalising the idea that some "we" cares less if a disabled person is the victim. The circumstances of gruesome crimes often get dragged out in the press - doesn't mean anyone sensible is making excuses. Quotes from neighbours that x "seemed a nice man" are dime-a-dozen regardless of the victim. Lawyers dragging out debatable psychology on behalf of their client is them doing their job, like it or not.
All her points about difficulty in reporting crimes, being believed etc I don't doubt, and I admire Young's advocacy on their behalf: but the source of the problem needs a sharper focus than "we". Its because people, we, are desperate to find answers, explanations, reasons. We have trouble with the notion of evil. Richard Dawkins famously said, ''In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference Oh no you bought out the Richard Dawkins quote, someones going to be hurt But I couldn't agree with you more and Dr Dawkins.
Oh Phew! Next time someone close to you is wronged, I hope that notion brings you solace. Not quite, Joel. We, as people living on our spinning orb, have to determine rhyme, reason, purpose etc for ourselves. This will no doubt require a consensus with other individuals in 'Team Earth'. As an individual, I adhere to a code of rhyme, reason, purpose etc that I believe is important, and one that I know has no bearing upon what happens to 'me' after I die but instead serves as an example of how others can go about their lives long after I'm gone.
Can you, Joel, 'man up' to that responsibility? Or will you choose the child's option of 'getting away with stuff' whenever mum and dad isn't watching? I think you are kidding yourself. What if I disagree like IS at present? Can you say I'm wrong, or just that you don't like it?
You have no external point of reference - just some vague notion of "humanity", "reason" or cultural norms. Is that what "manning up" means - to accept that all things are equal and permissible, so long as I have the will to enforce it? Also, you cannot arrive at an "ought" from Dawkins position - just a point of view. If you think that is enlightenment, you don't know what light is. Sure you can disagree, and if you have a broad consensus of those willing to rally behind you, you may even attempt a 'conversion' of those yet to see your light should you wish it.
I can say I don't like it and I can say you're wrong, yet if I have no consensus to rally behind me, I've got little choice to accept the standards of the new overlords, or die trying. In a sense, what you say about having the will to enforce it is exactly it, if one forgives the confrontational imperative. In the former, Man takes responsibility for the outcomes of that determining for good or ill. In the latter, Man is a childlike figure before a greater authority. Those who would claim that the lack of an authority figure would imply a relativist 'free-for-all' are simply claiming that the race of Man is wholly populated by scheming children just waiting to do whatever they like once the Adult's back is turned.
I like to think the race of Man is better than that, don't you? I'll take your word for it that one cannot arrive at an 'ought' from Dawkin's position, just a point of view. Yet we know from experience that not all points of view are of equal merit, despite the lessons of cultural relativism of the last 3 decades or so.
Just because I am of the view that I can make bread using arsenic, hemlock, rhubarb leaves and ergot-ridden grains, that doesn't mean that such a point of view has any merit worth following. Every aspect of knowledge, from knowing how to make bread, knowing what eggs can be used for, knowing how to design and build shelters and bridges etc is passed down from one generation to the next because they are consistent with the environment we find ourselves in.
In other words, we can rely on that knowledge, the points of view that are proven in the field, and we can save the following generation from having to work out those details themselves. Thank you for your considered response - I appreciate the obvious thought and time it took to compose.
However, I don't share your optimistic view of humanity - the evidence doesn't support it. People individually are fine, but as a group are litigious, selfish, short sighted and ignorant. Yes, knowledge builds on itself ideally , but not only has that not increased wisdom, it is an ideal for the most part science excepted as we don't learn from the mistake of others but think it'll never happen to me- we may be as a society be the best educated, but overall are the most stupid and vacuous, accepting and encouraging narcissism as virtue.
This is not to say I don't love humanity - I love humanity despite of this. I fear you hold to the notion that if we could just make people a little better, all would be well, and I agree with the exception that said improvement must start with a foundational change in the heart an persepctive of man, and not social policy or tech, and can never be legislated.
Have a great day and thank you for your courtesy and good will. Not at all. The point of Dawkins' statement is to explain why random bad things happen. It's not because malevolent forces are arrayed against us, it is because completely indifferent forces are at work. This doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't do things to improve the world from our perspective.
But it does mean we can't expect to make everyone safe, even the most deserving of people. There may be no meaning behind the deaths of this family. There may be no lesson to learn. We can't explain every action. We may have to live with random forces, some of which can kill us. Stella, assuming we are a bit less shocked because the wife had a disability is patronizing.
I haven't heard any one even partly trying to excuse the crime, although I'm sure some people would look to something like that to try and explain such a horrible act, but it still makes no sense. It just shows that not all people who committ monstrous act appear to be monsters. I think the point she is making is that his actions are seen as more justified because he was pushed beyond breaking point caring for a disabled wife, therefore his actions were more understandable or forgiveable.
That undercurrent has been apparent in a number of reports I've read. Seen several comments here saying much the same; is it possible you and others are over personalising Stella's comments? When Stella says 'we' I didn't take that to mean me as an individual, more 'us' as a society.
The Herald-Sun had what I found to be a highly offensive article where the quotes in Stella's piece came from. When I saw the defending of this man in the H-S my first thought was "Would they be defending him if he'd been Aboriginal? Or Muslim? I would much prefer to see Stella evaluate what a husband struggling with a wife's sudden disability, should do. Would he be morally permitted to put in her a care facility? What rights would she have to stay, requiring assistance from him, potentially forever? What are the balances between their needs? An injured partner, who relies wholly on the other to retain some semblance of normality and recovery, against someone who is incapable of providing that standard of care.
I think Stella's point of view would be much more interesting on that matter, that this complete strawman nonsense. A curious opinion piece, I'd say the author has an agenda floating just under the surface of this one. The author seeks to paint a picture that both she and the reader 'can find ourselves less horrified' to find out that 'a murdered wife is also a woman with a disability'.
When one is mentally ill one is not always rational, so surely cannot be judged on the premise that one is. Click here for instructions on enabling it in your browser. I'll take your word for it that one cannot arrive at an 'ought' from Dawkin's position, just a point of view. Children need time and to feel safe in order to express how they are feeling. But even a total lack of mental health support can't excuse a man for seeing the murder of his own family as the "only way out". What to expect in the final days Many parents want to know what to expect as their child approaches their final days, however this information can be confronting to read or talk about.
I think many people will have a problem with the projection of that sentiment upon them by the author. I certainly do. It's also a long bow to describe the circumstances at least insofar as they are outlined here simply as 'domestic violence', which encompasses a very broad spectrum of issues. Most people would imagine domestic violence to be an ongoing pattern of hitting, yelling, dominating, whatever else.
Where there is no such history indeed a loving family environment or so it seems but instead a rising level of mental stress that suddenly erupts into murder-suicide I think most people would classify that differently to your average scumbag wife-beater. I wonder what the author's opinion is of the wife who murders her husband after years of physical, emotional and financial abuse? Is there a case for diminished responsibility there? I would argue that there is, and in circumstances where the husband in this case probably had some pre-existing mental problems that were exacerbated by the stress of his wife's disability I think a similar principle probably applies.
I don't claim to have any particular insight into the case, and it's certainly a tragedy for the victims, their families and community. There is a double standard at work here. For a man who commits violence feminists insist no excuse is possible. For a woman feminists will accept and excuse violence no matter how flimsy the excuse. Do you ever comment on anything else here apart from waiting to jump in and blame women because you dont think they are sharing enough of the blame over domestic violence? And people like you Bev try to apologise for male violence by creating a canard such as female violence against men, ignoring the sociological, cultural and biological factors at play.
Just look at the numbers. I agree with most that the author says, I find it hard to agree that women who kill husbands should be part of this discussion. I have a picture in my mind and have had it since I first heard of this killing, I imagine the second and third child to be killed, having seen their father's first actions and knowing what was about to happen to them.
The betrayal and fear that must have ensued makes me ill! Yes, Lou. I have a similar response. Especially as the first shot may have brought their mother down and the children could have turned to their father for protection, not realizing what the real situation was. And to think that the 'straw that broke the camel's back' may have been something as simple as a foreclosure notice from the bank.
We seriously need better community support facilities, especially in regional areas. Oh dear, I'm crying again. The children, the poor, dear children Lexx I love how you start out by objecting to the author's "projection" onto you of the sentiment that the wife's disability had some level of mitigation on the crime that was committed.
But then you go on to express that sentiment exactly when you say that it was possibly a "rising level of mental stress that suddenly erupts into murder-suicide" and therefore that's different from the "average scumbags", and there's maybe some "diminished responsibility". Ann You are confusing yourself. Whether there is a case for diminished responsibility has absolutely no bearing on how horrified I feel that children and their parents are needlessly dead.
How horrified you are doesn't matter a whit. Either you believe that the wife's disability was a mitigating factor in the murder or you don't. Your statements seem to indicate that you DO consider it a mitigating circumstance, even though you protested to Stella thinking you do. Ann Judging by your comments in this discussion you've got your own axe to grind. That's fine, but don't presume to put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head. Have a nice day. Killing your whole family and yourself is against all notions of evolution and reproduction. There is something very extreme there.
The worst serial killers tend to leave their families alone. This violence is shocking because of how unnatural it is. I dont see any other species where a parent kills all of the family. Other species routinely have cases of killing members of other families. Something in humanity is a drive for murders of the whole kin. Among other mammals, it's quite normal for an incoming male to kill or drive away any offspring from a previous male, again to have sole proprietorial rights over the female s. Chapter Three.
Chapter Five. Chapter Six. Chapter Seven. Chapter ThirtyThree. Chapter ThirtyFour. Chapter ThirtyFive. Chapter ThirtySix. Chapter ThirtySeven. Chapter ThirtyEight. Chapter ThirtyNine. Chapter Eight. Chapter Thirteen. Chapter Fourteen. Chapter Seventeen. Chapter Eighteen. Chapter Nineteen. Chapter TwentyOne. Chapter TwentyTwo. Chapter TwentyThree. Chapter TwentyFour. Chapter TwentyFive.