Woman Kills Husband in Apparent Self-Defense

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

A Prince George's County woman fatally shot her husband in an apparent act of self-defense Saturday after he attacked her at the Capitol Heights duplex where the pair lived in separate units, according to police and neighbors.

Just after 8 a.m., authorities said, police were called to the home in the 700 block of Capitol Heights Boulevard on a report of a domestic dispute. In front of the house, they found Richard Marcellous Wilson, 30, with a gunshot wound. He was taken to a hospital, where he died.

Police said Wilson's wife fired the fatal shot.

The circumstances of the incident are unclear, but police think that the shooting "appears to have been in self-defense," said Cpl. Mike Rodriguez, a spokesman for the Prince George's police department. Wilson, police said, had violated an active protective order when he attacked his wife.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/21/AR2009062101921.html?hpid=sec-metro


I'm guessing the usual suspects here won't be calling her a murderer.


David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

1. Another strong woman for those that missed it.

[TPaine7]

2. Impossible.

1) Women in domestic violence situation DO NOT NEED FIREARMS! (Unquestionable fact--ex cathedra)
2) NO WOMAN is strong enough to pull the trigger on a violent felon she personally knows (Official doctrine, but its ex-cathredra status has been challenged by some feminist theologians)
3) If any women are exceptions to the above TRUTHS, they don't need firearms either (Technically heretical--but tolerated for the weak in faith who have trouble with number 1 and number 2)
4) This is almost certainly a misinformation story planted by the eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil NRA (Widely believed by the faithful)
5) You are trying to establish that women who are killed, injured or harmed by men and don't exercise their human right of armed self-defense deserve what they get (Obviously follows from official doctrine)
6) You are an evil misogynist and part of the diabolical patriarchal scheme (Also obviously follows...)



And for those who need it...



:sarcasm:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

3. No cheering here either.

[gorfle]

4. Holy Shit!

A woman defended herself against someone she knew!

That just never happens!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

5. That's right. Isn't the claim they are reluctant to hurt someone they love?

[TPaine7]

6. As I recall, the claim was they wouldn't shoot someone they

knew--whether it was the guy at work who asked them out repeatedly, or the janitor who cleaned their office.

As long as they know the guy, they wouldn't shoot him--so they couldn't possibly have any use for guns. Most rapists are known to the victim, after all. To hell with women who are raped by strangers. That's how logic works under the gun control reality distortion field.

[iverglas]

8. do they offer memory courses at your institution of undergraduate learning?

As I recall, the claim was they wouldn't shoot someone they knew

Oh, I know. This is just another demonstration of the demagogue's bag of tricks.

Preface any old shit with "as I recall", and it's no longer a statement that somebody has to own and either substantiate or retract, in the world of decency.

No, it's just a thing that sets up a who, me?? response to any query.

Don't worry. No queries here. Nothing needing clarifying at all. Clear as crystal, ta.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

9. Another example of willful blindness, thanks for clearing that up.

Yes that would be your willful blindness so there is no confusion.

David

[TPaine7]

10. Clear as crystal indeed

iverglas Tue Jun-16-09 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #31

40. would those be the ones committed by fathers, friends, intimate partners ...?

The usual suspects, the ones that NO WOMAN ON EARTH is going to have a gun at hand to use against, let alone would use?

The pornographic fantasies live on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x230249#230405

NO WOMAN ON EARTH would use a gun against a friend (emphasis in original).



Make all the points you want, iverglas, about the difference between "someone you know" and "friend." I'm sure some people will be impressed. Personally, I'm not going to waste any time looking for other quotes; that one shows your position clearly enough.

Spin away.

[JonQ]

13. Heh

nice.

I'm curious how iverglas will try to spin this and make it seem like you are lying unfairly.

[iverglas]

16. I'm going to have to be very sure that I write anything you might read

in the style of the belovèd Dick and Jane.

Simple, declaratory sentences. No literary devices or figures of speech.

Maybe you could hit me with something if you notice me straying from the straight and narrow?

[TPaine7]

18. Are you sure you can handle that?

Your usual style is to insinuate things while being careful not to state your positions. This allows you to do precisely what you claimed to think I was doing--set up a "who, me??" response to any query.

Simple declaratory statements would be very advanced for you.

Now as to the "literary devices" and "figures of speech" spin--it's pretty good. But it doesn't work either way. You see, if taken literally, the OP's story disproves it flat out. But even if it's intentional hyperbole it still fails. It is meant to convey--at the very least--that women will almost never use guns against friends and family--the usual rape perpetrators.

That's irrelevant, even if true. Some women obviously will (as the OP's story illustrates). Also, at least some women are raped by strangers. To hell with those other women, right?!!

Seeking to deprive all women of a right because most won't exercise it in certain circumstances is illogical and misogynistic.

The issue isn't literal vs. figure of speech, it's rights vs. denial of rights.

But nice spin.

[gorfle]

20. WHAM! The baseball bat of truth smacks home!

Your usual style is to insinuate things while being careful not to state your positions. This allows you to do precisely what you claimed to think I was doing--set up a "who, me??" response to any query.

Swack!

Well played, Sir, well played.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. I thought this would be easy to take apart but...

Perhaps others will have better luck. For me, I couldn't find any of the usual suspects like VPC actually outright stating that.
Perhaps they never have.


They have framed some self defense issues for women in a disingenious light though.

"Finally, another study reports, women who were murdered were more likely, not less likely, to have purchased a handgun in the three years prior to their deaths, again invalidating the idea that a handgun has a protective effect against homicide. For women in America, guns are not used to save lives, but to take them."

Completely out of context, and lacking correlation/causation. Does not reveal in any way whether the purchase of a handgun made them more likely to die, only that they felt some need (possible they were in greater material danger) to purchase a gun, and does not establish whether or not purchasing a gun had a protective effect. All it does is show that purchasing a gun is no single deus ex machina, clearly sometimes it fails. Ok, yeah. One of my co-workers was staying at a friends house, hiding from her husband and got caught in her parking lot, and was shot in the back of the head by her husband. She didn't see it coming. Could have bought all the guns in the world, and still, she might have been murdered.

The solution is to remove violent males from circulation. Victims having firearms may or may not be the best way to accomplish that. Technically I think it's irrelevant. I prefer a Jury does it.

[JonQ]

12. They might as well have done a correlation

between women who think they may be murdered and actual murder rates. And find that, remarkably, women who suspect they may be murdered are in fact more likely to be murdered! And then push for regulation of unpleasant thoughts.

Whoever did that report needs to retake stat 101.

[TPaine7]

14. I wouldn't expect even the VPC or the Brady Campaign to say that

no woman would shoot her husband, lover or friend.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Then why do some of us frame the issue that way?

Just boiling down the fluff to a single sentence, or what?

[TPaine7]

19. Why ask me?

I've never claimed that women would not shoot people they knew, or husbands or friends. Ever.

Literally, as a figure of speech, as part of a school play, ...

[armyowalgreens]

15. It's gross misrepresentations like that that really pisses me off.

I mean they can't possibly be that dumb, can they?

The only conclusion I can come to is that they are purposely manipulating data to meet their own needs. But they don't even seem to be good at that. The only people they are fooling are complete morons.

[east texas lib]

7. Well , Wilson won't be attacking her or anyone else anytime soon.

He choked on that biscuit, didn't he?